the rest of the discussion can be found at http://no2wto.listbot.com
>> I would like to comment on the reactions of some people to the
>> letters sent out by Fabel van der Illegaal. (canbe viewed at
>> http://www.savanne.ch/right-left.en)
>>
>> It seems to me that the texts have been slightly misinterpreted as
>> a call to " leave the battlefield" (Gunnar J18 list; norway) or similar
>> (Ilans email). There has been some questions about their attitude
>> towards PGA and there has been a questionning about why they
>> link up their websites with marxist/trotskist groups.
>>
>> I fear that these comments are not getting us to the substance of
>> what the Fabel wanted to say this is why I'd like to give some more
>> input in the discussion.
>>
>> Leaving the battlefield ?
>>
>> Gunnars email is very interesting because it reflects exactly the
>> point the Fabel wants to make.
>>
>> Gunnar tells us about the anti-Eu campaign in norway, he wrote:
>>
>> " You have to accept that people you don't
>> like, agree with you some of the time! In Norway we faught against
>> EU-membership togehter with a bunch of ugly brown toads
>> because we beleived in the cause - and we won. "
>>
>> My first reaction to this is: Who is "we" ? And what did you win ?
>>
>> The indian farmers that took part in the ICC (InterContinental
>> Carava) used to shout a similar slogan that gathered a lot of
>> popularity: "sinda badh" (or similar), meaning "we will win!". Many
>> people asked the same question: "who is we ? what will we win ?
>> We never got around to talk about it and can there be something
>> like one big WE ? Do I want to be in a "we" with someone that is
>> not respecting the minorities in this Caravan but shouts very
>> strongly against the WTO ?"
>>
>> Let me project Gunnars experience into a fictive situation in
>> Seattle. This would mean:
>>
>> we have to accept the fact that there are groups involved in the
>> protest against the WTO that are nationalist, maybe racist,
>> patriarchal and defending a stronger state capitalism. In Seatlle we
>> had to fight together with a bunch of ugly brown toads because we
>> believed in the cause (the WTO being the evil of the current state of
>> the world) - and we won.
>>
>> As I mentioned already in a previous email and also like other
>> people have been saying on the j18 list, if the WTO ceased to exist
>> tomorrow ALL THE PROBLEMS would remain.
>>
>> Gunnar, what is the situation like in Norway now ? Have you
>> abolished capitalism, racism and patriarchy now that a large "we"
>> won the anti-EU campaign ? Probably not and this is precisely the
>> point that the Fabel wants to make.
>>
>> The integration capacity of capitalism and its strong stabilisation
>> power are very complex mechanisms which cannot be explained
>> by a simplistic division of people vs the WTO or similar. The
>> problems are to a very large extend embedded in all human beings,
>> including me, you, the ones "on the left", and also in the people of
>> Fabel van der Illegaal.
>>
>> It would be interesting though to hear from you Gunnar what
>> emancipatory achievements you observe in Norway after the
>> campaigns success.
>>
>> I don't think the Fabel is calling to quit the battlefield. I think they
>> are saying the tactic and the weapons (to keep Gunnars guerristic
>> metaphore) used in the battlefied are not leading to a victory.
>>
>>
>> What I see as the main open questions is:
>>
>> 1. Is it possible to extend the 'movement' against "free trade", the
>> WTO and neoliberalism , its critique and analysis to fundamental
>> issues like racism, exclusion, nation state and patriarchy (and
>> more) thereby becoming more emancipatory ? Or is this
>> impossible due to the "structural problem" (Fabels wording) of the
>> focus being the issue of trade liberalisation ?
>>
>> [ In this context I'd like to respond to Cop Watch who asked what
>> the position of the Fabel towards PGA is. Well, in their texts they
>> say that first they tried to draw the attention to the PGA manifesto
>> not being clear about this issues and wanting to include them (see
>> the PGA website www.agp.org and go to the discussion forum,
>> you'll find their text). After a while they draw the conclusion that it
>> was not to "reform" the manifesto or the "free trade" campaigns so
>> to speak but that the focus on "free trade" was the problem.]
>>
>> At the PGA conference in Bangalore, people reacted to this
>> critique by extending the focus. This meant including an new
>> hallmark (rejecting systems of oppression racism, patriarchy ) and
>> stating that the PGA network aims to act against global capitalism
>> and not just focus on the WTO.
>>
>> 2. ideology ? Global identity ?
>>
>> Since the end of the cold war, the falling of the Berlin wall, the
>> Sandinists deafeat in Nicaragua etc it is pretty obvious that the
>> ideological frame of reference of "the left" was serioulsy disturbed,
>> leaving an enormous ideological vacuum behind. This lack of a
>> common, Left ideology seems to be essential to the Fabel. They
>> say:
>>
>> > For the Left to survive and to ever regain influence, a
>> > coherent ideology is a necessity. De Fabel doesn't want to run
>> > from action to meeting and back, without having a clear radical
>> > Left frame of reference and goal to go for. Otherwise there is a
>> > growing risk that we will all be
>> > running to the Right, quite possibly without even realising this
>> > ourselves.
>> >
>>
>> Now, what does ideology mean ? Roughly, an ideology emerges
>> only when a large amount of people think, agree and have
>> internalised the same fundamental values. It's a kind of identity that
>> a large amount of people on the planet have.
>>
>> In other words the Fabel thinks it is necessary to define this "we",
>> which is necessary for an ideology, it's a common indentity. And of
>> course the emancipatory aim of this "we".
>>
>> [ i don't know if i am convinced of this, but let's assume so]
>>
>> It seems there are two possible models:
>>
>> 1. Define the ideology, identity or framework first and then come to
>> action. Let's call it the Fabel model.
>>
>> 2. Develop an ideology, identity or framework "as we go". Let's call
>> it the zapatist model because they also say "caminando vamos
>> preguntando"(=3Dwe see as we go)
>>
>> I think we need a lot of debate around these two things and around
>> the way people on these lists think fundamental social change
>> happens or could happen.
>>
>> This is the way I have been perceiving things in the last years:
>>
>> Due to the mentioned ideological vacuum, groups and individuals
>> have recently been acting in the zapatist model.
>>
>> When PGA (Peoples Global Action) as a framework was created, it
>> created also an identity. The main hallmarks can be viewed at
>> www.agp.org, but in short they are: total rejection, non lobbying,
>> call for action, an organisational philosophy based on autonomy
>> and decentralisation. Especially the last hallmark is a very
>> important one, because in that sense it supports the zapatist idea
>> of "a world in which many worlds can fit" and suddenly the identity
>> is based on diversity (on many other identities) and not trying to be
>> homogenizing !
>>
>> The idea of PGA offers a very interesting framework (i am not
>> saying it's working right now). The framework is not about summing
>> up movements or groups but about generating collisions between
>> them and multiplying them out.
>>
>> All these "movements" that have existed or exist around the world
>> are not 100% emancipatory, they all carry their contradictions with
>> them. And still the influence of this movements "on the left" has
>> been significant: The environmental movement has contributed a lot
>> to demistify the absolute trust in technology and progress, the
>> women movements have had their influence on the gender issue,
>> the zapatistas have contributed a lot to the debate around issues of
>> power and so on.
>>
>> An RTS activsts from London was presenting Reclaim the Streets
>> in Geneva as something that had come together by a collision of
>> environmentalists, anarchists, squatters, ravers, civil rights
>> advocates etc etc . Remember the colors of RTS are green, black
>> and red.
>>
>> The idea of the street party in that sense is interesting because it
>> is a very simple act which brings people together. These people
>> didn't have to agree on an ideology beforehand, but suddenly in the
>> action they find themselves involved in something that creates a
>> common identity !
>>
>>
>> The PGA platform, the global action days or simply these lists
>> could act similarly as the street action.
>>
>> This is why I see groups and movements as something very
>> important. Active people, people in motion, squatting, protesting,
>> organising protest, thinking, writing and so on are more receptive to
>> tactics, analysis and critique from other groups.
>>
>> Imagine if these groups could listen to each other, learn from each
>> other and collide, and question permanently if what they do is
>> emancipatory. Then they could be integrating new emancipatory
>> elements little by little.
>>
>> The Fabel van der Illegaal gave an important point of critique, now
>> in the "we see as we go" process we need to react on it.
>>
>> I personaly think they are right saying that the focus on "free trade"
>> is not enough for the reasons mentioned above. BUt i am sceptical
>> about the conclusion that we need first a common ideology and
>> then we will be able to act.
>>
>> An ideology or identity cannot emerge just like that, just in an
>> international meeting of some individuals which then decide
>> something and then "impose" it on others. No it won't work.
>>
>> This is again where the idea of the consulta comes in. A common
>> identity can only emerge from people themselves, from peoples
>> realities. So why not combine our everyday campaigns, struggles
>> and realities with a process of consulta ? A horizontal process
>> where groups and individuals will ask themselves the question on
>> which basis they think they can work together . And I invite the
>> Fabel van der Illegaal to help shaping this process. The shaping of
>> the process should be as wide and horizontal as possible. It needs
>> to come from people and realities themselves and not from a
>> bunch of internationalists individuals who meet in international
>> meetings.
>>
>> The idea of a consulta in Europe has been discussed (a bit) by the
>> groups that have been involved in the InterContinental Caravan. The
>> discussion has not started really yet, but for example the italian
>> associanzione Ya Basta! (european conveener of PGA) made a
>> step in that direction. They just sent out a self presentation of their
>> political reality, their convictions and forms of action.
>>
>> [ There will be an international meeting in London probably from the
>> 6th-9th of november where this idea will be expanded. It would be
>> great to have the presence and/or feedback of many different
>> groups from all around Europe as such a consulta could only be
>> launched if it's the common wish of many many groups which
>> could carry the organisation of it. If you want to discuss about it or
>> come to London, please write to caravan99 at list.free.de or to
>> myself, desaparecido at gmx.de ]
>>
>> I think a consulta could contribute a lot on how we want work
>> together. So far the caravan and coordinated global action days are
>> the only things that groups have come up with. These two models
>> seem to be running into problems or showing the limitations of the
>> structures we have so far.
>>
>> - the caravan was a kind of project that was not the crystalisation
>> of a common wish and had a "top down" caracteristic
>> - the international days of action were great but now it seems that
>> everyone is projecting their reality internationaly and wants to
>> propose an international day of action: N30, millenim bug action
>> day , anti-Expo 2000, may 1st 2000.....
>>
>> Many groups have been reacting already saying that they don't
>> want to be following the political agenda of political leaders or
>> institutions all the time. So we need to rethink the global
>> coordinated action a bit. There must be more ways to act together.
>> There must be ways of acting together in such a way that local
>> realities can be taken into account without draining energy away
>> from them by saying "OK now you have to adapt your campaign to
>> make it fit the N30 action day".
>>
>> So to try to conclude, i think the Fabel van der Illegaal is making a
>> very important point to which groups need to react, debate and
>> think of ways forward. And their critique shouldn't be interpreted as
>> a call to quit or to stop what you are doing.
>>
>> Hoping the debate will go on
>>
>> in solidarity
>> Luciano
>>
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>>
>> * The word =93reality=94 is used here as the Italian groups do and
>> means local political struggle, organisation, people....simplemente
>> reality !
>>
>> * consulta: [There have been two consultas called by the
>> Zapatistas. The last one involved 2500 men and 2500 women from
>> the Chiapas-communities in resistance who visited in groups of 2 ,
>> many many other villages and communities which had
>> previously been meeting in plenaries and had discussed some
>> questions formulated by the EZLN. The groups of 2 zapatistas then
>> met with the plenary to present how they live the struggle, why
>> they do it and to hear feedback from the local communidad. The
>> actual consulta takes only 1 day, but the process of informing
>> people, calling meetings, discussing, processing the feedback ( in
>> a series of plenaries involving representatives of the
>> communidades), drawing a conclusion and implementing it is a
>> very long one ]
>>
>> * In summary, the Fabel is saying that by focussing campaigns on
>> "free trade" and neoliberalism, the groups involved will necessarily
>> find their activities in the same framework as nationalist and right
>> wing groups act in. Criticising trade liberalisation has a tendency to
>> leave fundamental issues as racism, exclusion, patriarchy in the
>> dark.