The Participation Trend & CoRIM Stand

By People's March

The following section, which is the principal section we are responding to, is excerpted from a much longer article which appeared in June 2004. The full article can be found on the People's March website at the following address: www.peoplesmarch.com -AWTW

The central aspect of this trend is to see the WSF as basically an anti-imperialist force, notwithstanding all its lacunae.

In the initial stages of the MR many a liberal intellectual and organisation considered the alternative programme as a splittist effort - i.e. dividing the anti-imperialist camp. But after they were given to understand the character of WSF, many of the genuine forces either left the WSF and joined the MR, or at least attended both. As time proceeded towards the build-up of MR the splittist accusation completely disappeared, and it grew to be an event with serious political ramifications gaining popularity daily - not just in India but also world-wide. By the time of the programme, those for participation from the Indian M-L circles had been reduced to a handful; and even outright revisionists, like Liberation, found it difficult to play much of a role (though their names were as prominent as that of the CPI and CPM initially [referring to the revisionist Communist Party of India and Communist Party of India (Marxist), respectively - AWTW]) due to opposition from the rank-and-file. Even the CPM was put so much on the defensive (again because of opposition from cadre) that the PB member, Yechuri, had to write a defensive article in their organ, People's Democracy (dated 28 Dec 2003), accepting NGOs as "safety valves" but sought participation in the WSF in order to struggle against the incorrect views. MR initiated a process of re-thinking amongst many, and brought a sharp polarisation between the real anti-imperialist forces and those that are apologists of imperialism.

So, while in India, the exposures of MR acted to effectively keep many of the genuine forces away from the WSF and bring them a step forward in building a genuine anti-imperialist movement; from abroad the tendency was more for participation. Surprisingly, it was the CoRIM that was one of the most assertive on this; and it was the RCP, USA's Revolutionary Worker (22 Feb and 14 March 2004 issues), that went to such an extent as putting WSF and MR on an equal plane, thereby, in effect, negating the need for an ideological and political struggle against the WSF through an alternative programme to counter its reactionary leadership and its diversionary role of it being a "safety valve" to diffuse the growing discontent. In fact the glowing report of the WSF in the RW was on the same plane as reports in the liberal/revisionist magazines and newspapers like Frontline, etc. The CPI(ML) Liberation's organ went one step beyond the RW articles, where in its February issue (in the article entitled "Voices against War & WTO") it completely ignored the existence of MR and only gave a report on the WSF. Even the bourgeois media were forced to take cognisance of both, but not the revisionists of Liberation.

Neither reports (Liberation & RW) have any serious criticism of the reactionary and hypocritical role of the WSF leadership, or the frivolous atmosphere present there. In fact in Mumbai, there were reports that at the very site itself, a section of the media stated that the WSF was non-serious and frivolous, and in that MR was a big contrast. There were quite a few speakers at the WSF who openly praised the merits of globalisation, asserted how globalisation would improve the lot of the dalits and other sections of the Indian people, and such reactionary trash. But this was not visible to RW and Liberation.

Liberation is of course an outright revisionist organisation and one does not expect better than to hob-nob with reactionaries - be it the ruling-class parties of the CPI/CPM or the imperialist-funded NGOs. In fact, a year earlier (5 Jan 2003), at a convention against globalisation in Hyderabad of seven "left" parliamentary parties, the Liberation Party's secretary, Dipankar Bhattarchajee, was enraptured by the unity of such forces against globalisation, ignoring the West Bengal government's role in implementing all diktats of the IMF/World Bank/ WTO. In the Feb 2004 Liberation report there is a glowing account of the WSF with no critical comment whatsoever. Similar reports were seen by liberal journalists in the main-line media, but at least they also took cognisance of MR. While totally ignoring MR they saw nothing wrong in playing up reactionaries in their report like Joseph Stiglitz (economic advisor in the Clinton administration).

But one would have expected better from the RIM, which normally goes into great details on the question of political standpoint. Unfortunately that was not so in this case. The one-sided reporting in RW comes from the political approach of the CoRIM and reflected in its open letter, dated 8 December 2004, entitled "To comrades involved with the World Social Forum and Mumbai Resistance-2004", circulated through the net.

There are three aspects to this "letter". First is the question of participation in the WSF. The second is the class analysis of the WSF and the third is the ideological and political question vis-à-vis WSF.

I. Question of Participation

This "letter" clearly states that participation is very much necessary in WSF, and in a big way. If that is so then what was the need for MR? If all forces are to be used to create an "impact" in WSF, there would be no question of organising an alternative event. Yet it adopts a sort of eclectic approach praising the MR initiative as well (with criticisms). This is not understandable for, if all should participate in the WSF, the logical corollary would be not to hold an alternative event.

The letter in fact says: "It is very important that forces representing the proletarian point of view are present in the WSF to the greatest possible degree. There is no doubt that the opportunists will try to prevent a clear anti-imperialist and revolutionary line from being presented from the stage and so forth. But we should not make their work easier for them." The "letter" adds that, "We should be seeking to participate in official WSF seminars and debates wherever possible and where this is not possible speaking from the floor as well as organising other activities." With such a high level of proposed involvement where would there be any necessity to hold an alternative event. So, in essence, the CoRIM was opposed to the MR programme advocating instead participation in the WSF, though it does not say so openly. This approach is also clear that when the RW reports both equally positively, it is apparent that in its view the MR had no specific political role to play in developing an anti-imperialist pole within the anti-globalisation movement. Such an approach is not surprising as a year back the RW also praised the 2003 WSF, in fact putting it on equal plane with the militant demonstrations at Davos (see RW 1186, 9 February 2003).

In fact, in its style of reporting the RW gives the impression that political polarisation was being done by WPRM's propaganda in both events. The letter also gives the impression that it is the WPRM that is to politically intervene in both as it sets various tasks for it. It says "We should use the Mumbai activities as an occasion to promote and build the WPRM". This is also a misrepresentation of the facts, as the WPRM (South Asia) was a constituent of MR not the WSF - in fact it was one of the initial initiators of MR.

So, in essence, what the CoRIM is saying (without actually putting it in so many words) is that the MR was unnecessary and the goals it set could well have been achieved by big involvement in the WSF by WPRM, which should give attention to "collecting names and addresses of advanced forces who are coming from different countries".

As Lenin once said that left sectarianism and right opportunism are but two sides of the same coin. Here, in the CoRIM approach, both are in evidence. The attitude of the CoRIM to the WSF has an element of rightism, while the exclusivist role assigned to the WPRM is sectarian. There is no approach here to unite with other ideological and political forces in a joint anti-imperialist struggle, while seeking to win over the advanced forces that are coming from different countries. In fact the only task set in the entire "letter" is to win over others, either by collecting names and addresses or by propagating MLM through WPRM; this is a narrow sectarian approach towards the UF. Actually the two tasks mentioned here is only one aspect of the work, the other is to unite with other progressives in a joint struggle against imperialism, particularly the US (and not through tailism on the WSF platform). It was through MR in fact that both tasks were achieved. Essentially MR acted to win over the anti-imperialist sections and seeks to consolidate them, in India, into a tactical united front of revolutionary, anti-imperialist and progressive forces; while the Maoist parties, CCOMPOSA, etc, sought to carry the political line of MLM and people's war as widely as possible. Also many revolutionary mass organisations were present that were close to MLM ideology and had the opportunity to propagate their views. CoRIM suggests only doing the latter task (that too only through the WPRM, ignoring the other non-RIM revolutionary forces) and not the former.

II. CoRIM's Class Analysis of WSF

On this it appears that the CoRIM has some illusions regarding the class character of the WSF in general and NGOs in particular. In fact even the social democrats are not shown as ruling class elements; the entire analysis gives an anti-imperialist role to ruling class social-democrats, NGOs and the WSF. This is politically and ideologically wrong. To prove the credentials of the WSF it does not even properly delve into its history thereby even misrepresenting facts. In the "letter", the genesis of WSF is traced to 2001 Porto Allegre conference. This is factually wrong as has been already shown earlier. Apart from this the concept of WSF has its genesis in responses to the growing crisis in the form of the UN instituting corporate responsibility, the Manila Social Forum etc. The formation of WSF was first declared in the UN's social summit in June-2000.

Regarding the class character of the leadership of the WSF the "letter" says, that: "The basic analysis that MR has of the opportunist leadership of the WSF is in our view mainly correct. But we do have serious reservations about the tactics and approach MR-2004 is developing in relation to the WSF."

Firstly the MR has never defined the WSF leadership as merely "opportunist". The understanding behind the MR is that the leadership is pro-imperialist, that "basically channelises dissent into avenues acceptable to the big capitalist powers". So the class character of the leadership of the (imperialist-funded) NGOs and the ruling class social democrats is pro-imperialist, not mere opportunists. But nowhere, either in the letter or in the RW articles, does this class analysis come across. In fact the "letter" gives the impression that they are some sort of progressive force.

See what it says on the very first page: "Outside of Brazil the WSF was initially promoted by a section of the European left, for example those grouped around the influential journal Le Monde Diplomatique and the organisation known as ATTAC which has been growing quickly in Europe and is associated with the anti-globalisation mass mobilisations. In particular, the organisers of the WSF have tried to identify with and attract those forces that have emerged to oppose "globalisation"."

Here there is no political exposure as to the class character of the so-called "European left", ATTAC, etc, and gives the impression that they are all progressive forces. Also the last sentence quoted above gives the "organisers of WSF" a clean chit, making out that they are actually anti-globalisation as they have "have tried to identify with and attract those forces that have emerged to oppose globalisation".

In addition, ATTAC is made to look like some force opposed to globalisation. But what is the reality? ATTAC is close to the ruling-class social-democratic party of France, who has in fact accepted the concept of "Tobin Tax" put forth by ATTAC. Also ATTAC aggressively opposes any form of violence that has occurred at the anti-globalisation demonstrations.

Here, the "letter" does no class analysis of forces like these, just a positive statement that these organisations have been growing quickly in Europe. Even regarding the Brazilian Party the criticism is mild, when in fact Lula has implemented IMF/WB policies with more efficiency than that of his predecessor.

Also regarding the NGOs there is not a word about their widespread presence in the WSF, nor about their imperialist funding and the role they play in sabotaging the revolutionary movement. In fact in the entire "letter" there is not a single word on the NGOs, nor on the funds received by the WSF from the Ford Foundation, Oxfam, etc.; on the contrary, in the report in RW they try and go out of their way to prove the anti-imperialist credentials of these organisers, when they say that the "WSF organisers refused to serve Coke and Pepsi and used Linux instead of Microsoft computer software products". Why this silence on the NGO factor? Why the positive presentation of ruling class social democrats from Europe? Why the attempt to whitewash the "organisers" of the WSF? And when this is coupled with glowing reports on the WSF - both in 2003 and 2004 - by the RW and the call for maximum participation, the overall picture that is given is that the WSF and its leadership are an anti-imperialist force (not a safety valve) with which we must unite. This is a serious flaw in the line and understanding of an important on-going movement. It must be clear that no anti-imperialist front can be built with imperialist-funded NGOs or ruling-class social democrats.

Elsewhere in the "letter" the CoRIM calls the leaders of the WSF as "opportunists", "misleaders of the masses", and though they "...are not fundamentally opposed to the world system of imperialism and reaction" they see them as forces who "do oppose particular outrages of the imperialists and their world institutions". The CoRIM further adds that "While these forces oppose the current US imperialist drive for unquestioned world hegemony they do not oppose the imperialist system itself". All such arguments may apply to the bulk of the organisations that are participants of the WSF and may be confused, but it is incorrect to see the leadership of WSF in the same light. It is the class analysis of the leadership that determines the class character of the organisation and one's approach and tactics towards the WSF. As the CoRIM is not prepared to see the leadership of the WSF (whether the social-democratic leaders or the top brass of the NGOs) as props/apologists of imperialism, but as mere "opportunists", "misleaders", etc. it is quite natural that they have a positive approach to the WSF.

This is particularly alarming when the CoRIM condemns (or at least downplays) armed struggles against the US and its puppets, if they are led by Islamic forces and even dismisses the armed struggles in Columbia, Mexico, etc., which are not led by Maoists as that of "armed revisionists". Yet, an organisation in which its leadership is vehemently opposed to any form of violence, which is rabidly anti-communist and is led by pro-imperialist organisations and individuals, is praised!!! While dismissing the armed struggles that are not on MLM lines the CoRIM fails to see its anti-US content and thereby adopts a sectarian approach to them. On the other hand, by not seeing the pro-imperialist nature of the WSF leadership and its role as a "safety valve" to diffuse the discontent of the masses, it adopts a positive approach to it, amounting to tailist and rightist politics. As is normally the case, left sectarianism and rightism go hand-in-glove. For revolutionaries to win over the masses who attend the WSF, it first and foremost requires a correct understanding to what it really is and its role in the anti-imperialist movement, whatever may be the tactics we use in approaching it.

III. Question of Ideology

The CoRIM "letter" complains that the MR devoted too much effort in "exposing the WSF". Firstly, if the WSF was not exposed for what it is, the very reason for an alternative programme would vanish. Besides, without exposing the WSF how is it possible to convince the people that it is diverting them from the path of struggle, is not opposing imperialism as such, and therefore the need to come out and join the MR. If the MR programme existed without such an event going on simultaneously it would not have been necessary to focus exposure on the WSF. But the very reason for holding MR, that too across the road from WSF, was because the WSF was taking place. Unless the masses understood the need for an alternative event, they would merely consider it as splittist, superfluous and like splitting hairs. There was need for them to understand that there was a fundamental difference between the WSF and the MR, only then could there be validity for an alternative programme, that too on the same topic. So, one had to oppose WSF; and rally people for MR. But of course, unlike the boycottists of the ND/SOC, the approach would be that of exposure of the WSF, and an attack on imperialism. Target imperialism, expose the WSF - that was the essence of the MR approach.

Further the "letter" says that there should not have been an attack on the slogan "Another World is Possible" and also post-modernism from the MR platform.

Regarding the slogan "Another World is Possible", however popular it may be, that is one of the means of duping the masses. Unless this subterfuge was exposed it was not possible to convince the masses of an alternative. Of course the method by which it needs to be done should be creative and not dogmatic - on that we have no difference with CoRIM. We think the MR was quite apt in saying that the only other possible world is that built on self-reliance, moving towards socialism. There was nothing dogmatic about it.

On the question of post-modernism we cannot understand the "letter" saying "it is not correct for an organisation such as MR-2004 to polemicise against post-modernism". Why not? The "letter" gives no reasons, but gives the impression that such an attack on the philosophical front is the sole prerogative of the Party, and MR, WPRM, etc should only open the way "for us to carry out our independent communist work, especially the propagation of the stand, viewpoint and method of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism". Post-modernism should, in fact, be attacked thoroughly from all fronts, whether by left-leaning Marxist intellectuals or by any organisation that is capable of doing so, including the Maoist party. In fact many a good critique on post-modernism has come from the non-Maoist camp. This, after all, is the philosophical base of the NGO culture and numerous other progressives, which is basically an all-round attack on Marxism (though its ability to grow lay in the setback of communism and the lack of answers at that time from the communist revolutionaries to various evils of the prevailing imperialist system). But, having said that, nowhere did MR make an attack on post-modernism a criteria for joining, as claimed by the CoRIM "letter". This is a distortion of the reality. What is the problem of a free debate on the subject? After all, does not the WSF eulogise the factor of free debate, as some goal in itself (rather than a means to an end). It is quite inconceivable to understand why this point is raised in the first place by the CoRIM, as such a restricted approach of allowing attacks on post-modernism from only an MLM platform, only helps allow post-modernism unhindered sway over vast sections of the progressives. On the questions posed by the post-modernists, like "power & bureaucracy", ethnic questions, culture and architecture, feminism, sub-alteran studies, etc., etc., there must be concrete answers from the broad Marxist camp, and they should not be just wished away, or kept as the prerogative of some supposed Maoist pundits.

So, whether it is the slogan "Another World is Possible" or the question of post-modernism or it is the question of much of the other political/ideological reformism being promoted by the leadership of the WSF, all must be exposed widely (though creatively, not in formula style repetition of Marxist "truths" ), if at all the sincere elements within these are to be won, to at least a genuine anti-imperialist programme, or even to MLM itself.

The essence of what the CoRIM is saying is reduce the exposure of the WSF to a minimum, by not attacking its central slogan, or the question of post-modernism, or by saying that the MR over-did it. But, without exposure there would be no real political intervention; and just asserting general truths of MLM away from what is going on at the spot would be a meaningless exercise.