![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The World Social Forum (WSF) is an alternative to the World Economic Forum (WEF) and had its first meeting in Porto Alegro in 2001. I am very interested in the WSF as a concept; with no leadership only loosely defined guidelines and the slogan "another world is possible", it attempts to find an alternative to the neoliberalization of the world and the capitalist globalization. At the same time, it wants to discuss different views, and develop bonds between different global and national organizations in order to create agreement as well as potential for future collaboration. All this is good, but there are some problem I see.
1. They have no elected leadership.
On the one hand, I think it's an interesting choice and I think it's commendable that they want to make sure that everyone feels equal in the decision making process and in the organization in itself. On the other hand I have my doubts about the reality of the equality of this type of organizing. It is my experience that attempts at a flatly structured leadership only serve to hide the real leaders and keep people from choosing them in a visible and formal capasity. Instead, you have a situation where informal leaders, who become leaders either because they take control, do more than others, or have the charisma or clout in international society that people will listen to them, have lots of power.
My question to you then becomes: Should they take the difficult, but perhaps necessary, discussion of how to make the voting most democratic, or should they continue on as they have before? Do you see a third alternative?
2.They have no clearly stated goals.
As a meeting place, a place to exchange experiences and connect/collaborate with other organizations, whether national, NGOs or CSOs, the conferance works well. To actually decide on what this "other world" is supposed to be, let alone to find a common ground on which to wage this battle against capitalist, neoliberal society, the forum has as of yet proved lacking.
Where do you think the forum should go today? Are you happy with the service it has rendered so far or do you wish it would bring more actual goals that people could fight for?
Discuss away! I'm actually interested (and it's almost relevant to my masters degree...)
This icon is called "sick barney"
1. They have no elected leadership.
On the one hand, I think it's an interesting choice and I think it's commendable that they want to make sure that everyone feels equal in the decision making process and in the organization in itself. On the other hand I have my doubts about the reality of the equality of this type of organizing. It is my experience that attempts at a flatly structured leadership only serve to hide the real leaders and keep people from choosing them in a visible and formal capasity. Instead, you have a situation where informal leaders, who become leaders either because they take control, do more than others, or have the charisma or clout in international society that people will listen to them, have lots of power.
My question to you then becomes: Should they take the difficult, but perhaps necessary, discussion of how to make the voting most democratic, or should they continue on as they have before? Do you see a third alternative?
2.They have no clearly stated goals.
As a meeting place, a place to exchange experiences and connect/collaborate with other organizations, whether national, NGOs or CSOs, the conferance works well. To actually decide on what this "other world" is supposed to be, let alone to find a common ground on which to wage this battle against capitalist, neoliberal society, the forum has as of yet proved lacking.
Where do you think the forum should go today? Are you happy with the service it has rendered so far or do you wish it would bring more actual goals that people could fight for?
Discuss away! I'm actually interested (and it's almost relevant to my masters degree...)
This icon is called "sick barney"
