50,000 delegates at European Social Forum in Paris

by Major Woody Mon Nov 17, 2003 14:44

Small fish moves into big pond and gets swallowed
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/57669.php

Plus Britain to host ESF 2004
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/504/esf.html

by IMC reader Mon Nov 17, 2003 15:01

It shows why SWP refuse to engage in debate. They can't handle it.

by Amused Mon Nov 17, 2003 15:59

it WAS a debate !!!!

by gurrier Mon Nov 17, 2003 17:28

1. Apparently there was a brawl on the main march between the anarchist CNT contingent and the security service of the Parti Socialiste (hired thugs, many off-duty cops) on the main march. Reports are on Urban75: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60386

2. Other reports have emerged, painting a much less happy-clappy picture than that by the SWP automatic-article generator above. Some choice quotes:

"the soul of the esf has shrivelled to a mere haunted spectre of itself. Twitching in grotesque caricature."

"well, fuck me - after that stage managed farcical (if often highly enjoyable) event, many of the criticisms of the swp bid seem positively mild compared to what should be thrown at the lying hypocritical scum from ATTAC who pissed all over this event.

bunch of stage managed meetings, events split all over the city so there was no attempt at really gaining the experience of the 100,000 who were supposedly there. carve ups based on supposed 'consent' principals but which were actually an excuse for the right-wingers to ensure that THERE view point is promoted."

more at: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58566

A bit about the various scheming involved in bring the next ESF to London, from IMC-UK: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/280225.html

Finally, a question for Rory. In your report you say:

"also sat 13th dec in dublin- launch of alliance for a europe of social rights-in a world without war-alliance involving everybody and group that wants to mobilise around eu presidency meetings and summits during our presidency"

The way this is phrased, it would appear that this was decided by the ESF. However, I seem to remember this date was already announced by GR as a meeting that they were holding - without the involvement of any other groups. Did the ESF really call for this launch, or are you just slipping it in here as something that GR are organising independently? If the ESF did indeed back this proposal (which I very much doubt), who the hell are they to tell us to go to a GR meeting?

Boycott, boycott, boycott.

by gurrier Mon Nov 17, 2003 19:24

Seem to indicate (along with most reports) that the PS were prepared for this and provoked the violence from the red and black cortege. It also appears that a few dozen 'autonomists' were the ones to kick off the violence despite the attempts of the CNT security forces to stop them. Much debate at paris IMC.

by IMC reader Tue Nov 18, 2003 12:05

Just don't bother. This is a desperate attempt to shore up some support for a ghost organisation(by the way what happened to Nora?). They represent themselves, i.e. the shrinking membership of the SWP. A new movement is emerging and they are being by-passed. No amount of lies, rhetoric and manipulation will save them from oblivion. Let's keep doing the good work. The GG in Galway was fantastic. That's the way forward.

by ooooo. it's the o as if Wed Nov 19, 2003 00:16

the assembly of social movements in Paris accepted the proposal to mark unhappyness with Forum 2004 of cultures in BCN on Nov 16. That will be twinned with reaction to the forthcoming Greek Olympics. [To be classical and proportioned]

20th March is convened action against the occupation of Palestine and Iraq.

and stuff on the EU constitution 9th May.

more circles and manipulation that will sicken ye @:
http://www.dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=63743&group=webcast

now feel better read this (it's in french):
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-342309,0.html
and then look at this:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/280661.html

Chirac is promising some type of reaction to heightened anti-semitism, most recently with Mbeki he moved to suggest passing legislation, the fact remains that Jews feel unsafe in France again. They are not Israelis. & sometimes classical proportions are balanced and other times not.

by Major Woody Fri Nov 28, 2003 16:48

First I'll set the scene. The debate called by Globalised Resistance (in this context read SWP) was scheduled to be in a small hall holding 200. Thousands turned up and when they couldn't get in started banging on the walls and doors demanding the debate be held outside. So out we trooped forgoing simultaneous translation for consecutive translation and that nostalgic mass meeting ambiance. People were crowded all around, sat on the floor or standing at the back, on a walkway above, on the stairs leading down, there were even two or three hanging in trees to get a better view.

Callinicos spoke first reading from a prepared text he sounded like leninoid university lecturer , which he is. Crap speaker, very dry at one point he talked about the excitement of the movement in the same flat unexcited drone that he used for the rest of his speech.

Callinicos opposed multitude to working class. He said Hardt had called multitude a poetic concept; but poetry is different from analysis. He said that he understood Multitude as all those who are oppressed and that oppression was different from exploitation. That the power to change society resides where we work because we are organised at work. He got out a copy of a flier for global magazine and said that the problem with the concept of multitude was the way it was sometimes used. He read out a list of categories from the back of the flier precarious workers, students, migrants, brain workers... he said where 's striker on that list. He then lost the "people sometimes use" section of his statement and treated that like the definition of multitude. He also ignored that the list was just a list of categories on a flier and was no where linked to a definition of multitude. He started to talk of the multitude as the movement of movements, you know all those peripheral struggles; and that we need to take energy of the movement of movements and fuse it with the transformative power of the organised working class. To which we all thought, hmm I wonder what organisation could articulate that fusion. How would it work? perhaps an alliance between globalise resistance and a couple of newly elected left wing union leaders. Both of them delivering their massed ranks and weilding them like generals.

During all this Negri was getting more and more agitated pacing up and down. The Trots clapped Callinicos in a ritual fashion, including embarrassingly after he'd said nothing in particular but was pausing for breath. A couple of times when this happened Negri would join in the clapping in a piss taking exaggerated fashion as if he was saying "yes, yes all hail the dear leader." He was constantly shaking his head and once after a particularly preposterous misrepresentation he wafted his nose as if to get rid of a bad smell.

When he came to speak he was very animated. He would speak in Italian, winding himself up gesticulating wildly building to a crescendo and then stop and hold his hands stretched forwards, palms up with a look on his face which said "Come on, how could you not agree with that." Then he would translate himself into French getting just as agitated this time around. It was truly hilarious but seemed very human.

He started off by declaring the Multitude not a poetic concept but a class concept. The thing is the way work is organised, the way people work has changed since 1968. Production has spread through the whole of society and so has exploitation. In fact exploitation was the thing that the multitude had in common.

He also said that exploitation can no longer be measured through work time because we produce through the whole of the day. He then mentioned Affective labour and made the hilarious statement that women's work was "Knowing where the socks are." This remark brought huge boos to which Negri laughed and wagged his finger saying "no, no just wait". Then explained that "where's the socks?" is the title of a book on affective labour by Christian Marrazi on how work has become more feminised.

Another thing I remember he said was about Immaterial labour and how when Marx wrote Capital there were only 3-400 factories in the world but Marx realised that whole rest of production was being organised in their image.

All this was to oppose this class concept of Multitude to a monolithic concept of the working class, which he called a big mistake. He said the working class has never produced as a mass but as a multiplicity of singularities. He said you can't have alliances between the factory working class and other sections, Stalin made alliances. Instead you have to find what's in common. He then came out with this remarkable anecdote of organising at Alfa Romeo in the 70's. he said something like, the Unions had agreed to work longer hours or on Saturday for no extra pay and that an organisation of the unemployed he was involved in went to the factory to argue with the workers. There was two ways to deal with the conflict. He said what we did was blow up the electricity substation and shut down the factory; but this was a mistake. Now we try a different approach and try to find what is in common. At this point I turned to a friend and said "he's just showboating now."

In the question and answer session all question were for Negri. All question on theoretical issues such as the importance of Delueze or Foucualt were ignored to move on to the political nitty gritty.

Other points I remember was someone asking Negri where the points of attack are and Negri saying I don't know.

Someone stood up very self important, I got the impression he was head of a minor leninoid sect determined to have it out with this Negri fellow. I must have this question answered: "Negri can you abolish capitalism without seizing the means of production?" Negri gave the one word answer "No." and turned away for the next question.

The most remarkable thing was that every comment by Callinicos and nearly every Trot question ignored or misunderstood everything Negri had said and referred back to the straw man Callinicos had set up at the start. It reached such ridiculous proportions that the audience was shouting at them "that's not what he said" or "try listening to what's being said."

I thought that most were being disingenuous at the time but still it goes on. there was a report and a bit of a debate on Indymedia uk . I looked the other day and the last comment is from some arse in Workers power who says "Negri is purposely vague and complex about what he sees as the body which can bring about the revolution... We are a revolutionary party who believes that the working class is the only group in society that can bring about socialist revolution. Does Negri agree? If he does then why doesn't he say so?". This joker claims to have been at the debate and has presumably read the couple of pages of debate and reportage above. It is as if there are these huge blinkers on and that anything said that doesn't fit with their ideology just doesn't register.

Anyway enough of that. What did we all learn that day? Well I never realised Negri was such a good speaker. Obviously he's been through the mill a few times and you're bound to pick up stuff. His Leninist years presumably demanded oratory skills, but it didn't come across as demagogic. He was very human when he spoke. He also didn't speak as an academic, a secret reformer or whatever. There was no break in his life he talked about the 70's as a time when they made some mistakes (Alfa romeo) but they were still trying to achieve the same thing. In a way that was the advantage of seeing him speak live. It was also important because Callinicos got such an arse kicking. Completely stuck in the 1950's he was reduced to lying or mouthing platitudes. This matters because in Britain there a couple of events coming up where the hardcore SWP hacks are probably going to be at their worst and these arguments will go on.

by Steelie Fri Nov 28, 2003 19:39

What's so special about the working class?

OVER 1,200 people tried to get into a room that held only 250 to hear a debate between Toni Negri and Alex Callinicos. Globalise Resistance, the hosts of the meeting, responded by bringing the PA system outside and holding it in the open air.

People listened for over two hours, sitting on concrete, perched up trees or standing on bins, in one of the most inclusive meetings of the ESF. The debate centred on whether the organised working class had the potential power to play the central role in breaking the global hold of capitalism.

Alex Callinicos argued that workers' position as the source of capitalists' profits meant they could play that role. He pointed to central role of the Bolivian miners in drawing the rest of the oppressed in Bolivian society behind them in the recent uprising.

The restructuring of capitalist production means there are now one billion workers in the world. "They work in Chinese steel plants, Indian call centres, Indonesian sweatshops, and in the offices and factories of the advanced industrialised countries," Alex said. He argued that mass strikes in France in May and June, and workers' struggles in other countries, showed how working class power was central to challenging capitalism.

Alex Callinicos called for working towards a "fusion" of the anti-capitalist and anti-war movements, "with all their dynamism, creativity, hope and energy", with the "collective strength of the working class".

Toni Negri argued that the nature of production had changed so that the working class no longer played a central role. He said the suffering that capitalism imposes means that "we are exploited not only when we are at work" but in many other ways too. His conclusion was that the challenge to capitalism will come from a range of different movements, each operating according to its own specific logic.

Everyone agreed about supporting resistance to capitalism wherever it comes from. But the differences between the two speakers were not academic. That became clear from the questions and discussion.

One person said that it was impossible to make sense of the struggles against long working hours if you believe working time is not important as exploitation by the boss takes place everywhere.

Another pointed to the limited general strike in Spain against the war, saying, "This is the kind of thing that, built on, could not only stop wars but lead to a better world."

Running through the whole debate was the question of whether the anti-capitalist movement is going to draw on the huge successes of the last year and try to make deeper connections with a force that can strike capitalism at its heart. Both Alex Callinicos and Toni Negri spoke for the meeting when they said they approached the discussion in a spirit of common struggle against a common enemy.

_________

Obviously the author didn't get the content of the debate either.

by R Isible Fri Nov 28, 2003 20:40

Is your posting above an original one? i.e. is it cut and pasted from some other source or did you just write this comment? I ask because I'd like to argue for it's being featured if it is original.

by R Isible - is cool! Fri Nov 28, 2003 21:02

with links and stuff.