More Scholarly Debate Please

I have participated in four of the seven WSF meetings, including the very last one in Nairobi this January. The Nairobi WSF was, to my experience, the weakest meeting both in terms of attendance and also in its impact. The Mumbai Forum in 2004, on the other hand, was a highlight.

I am of the opinion that the WSF’s charter of principles is open, democratic, and has an embracing appeal to a wide audience. The mode of organization of the WSF, on the other hand, with the deliberate lack of a formal secretariat creates certain problems of communication and of diffusion. The decision to maintain a non-hierarchical organizational status, with intentional attempts to achieve maximum horizontal integration, sometimes leads to gaps in action and problems of lack of proper channels for further communication. On the other hand, the lack of a hierarchical framework is regarded to be more inviting by many groups and individuals. The emphasis on horizontal integration renders the WSF to be more accessible and hospitable.

That being said, however, I find that the WSF meetings need more structure. A case for a heavier emphasis on academics can also be proposed. As it stands now, the presentations succeed in attracting many diverse groups and individuals, but it could be equally appropriate to have one or two keynote speakers with formal presentations as a showcase against the World Economic Forum (WEF) at Davos. I am not suggesting, by any means, to imitate or replicate the WEF. But the WSF should convey the message that it is not a party place for the world’s marginals, but rather a meeting place both to engage in academic research on alternatives to neoliberal globalization as well as a party place to display our cultural diversity.

The question of the “alternative” is a tricky and difficult concept, both in terms of realism and in terms of the very concept itself. On the one hand, just being critical of the neoliberal globalization agenda does not suffice often in embracing masses of people. One is often confronted with the statements that “well, globalization is unavoidable” and “in order to benefit from this process you have to follow the list of requirements.” Thus, I believe that the quest for alternatives comes to this juncture: to argue that globalization is not a unique trajectory, that there are alternative globalization paths as well. That, the alleged unavoidability of globalization itself does not necessarily call for following the unique set of policy requirements set by the neoliberal agenda.

But then the other side of the alternative problematique emerges: “should the quest for alternatives be limited by the constraints of the system, or are we supposed to first and foremost indicate that no viable alternatives are possible that can improve the well being of the working masses under capitalist exploitation?” Consequently a dilemma emerges. Should we try to offer “realistic” and “applicable” alternative policies within the capitalist system? Or should we argue that capitalism cannot be remedied or that, even if it could, this is not the task of progressives around the world since we should only prepare for the revolution and life after capitalism instead.

I am of the opinion that casting the “alternatives” issue in these terms is a trap to be avoided. I suggest that the quest for alternatives should be pursued at both levels, that is, we need to specify defensive policies to remedy the working conditions of the laboring masses within a capitalist system not to achieve desired ends per se, but to invoke the arguments as a demonstration that alternatives do exist and yet cannot be implemented because they conflict with the interest of the ruling classes. Thus, the strategy here is to create class awareness within the capitalist system. Then at a further level of strategy, we can make our case for life after capitalism, that is, socialism.

I would like to see the WSF to take an active role and provide an academic forum for these discussions.