User talk:DanOlner

=SSF2005: Dan's journal=

Thursday 4th November 2004: mostly a politico rant
Ha ha! God knows why I'm doing this. I think I must be crazy. But I'm gonna start it right here, right now, dictatorial-fashion...

SSF2005: you're either with us or you're with the neocons!

... but of course, that's the beauty of social forums. Anyone can come here to the WIKI, or to the meetings, dictator-like, and propose something - even demand something if they want to try their luck.

But no-one's under any obligation to join in. If you can't get folk to join in, you're stuffed. It's power-with, not power-over, as Starhawk would say.

I thought I might keep a journal, here on the WIKI. Hope no-one minds.

I started writing the following for the main SSF2005 page, but realised that I was getting into a bit of a quagmire. So let's just stick it here for now! -

"Are you socialists?"

Some people mistakenly call us the 'Sheffield Socialist Forum'. The SSF is wider than that. It can include everyone who wants to see a world based on the values of solidarity and human life, not on money. This is a big group! It can include anarchists, socialists, 'social entrepreneurs' and people who just happen to think that being nice to each other is the future of humankind. It includes those who think civilisation should be brought crashing down and the money system destroyed, as well as those who think that a new economy is possible that has human life as its central value, not profit. (And don't let any World Bank economist claiming that they dream of a world free of poverty tell you any different!)

SSF is anti-authoritarian - it aims to show that 'horizontal' organisation can work - indeed, that it's the only way we're going to achieve any lasting social justice. Authoritarian socialists generally don't like the social forum movement - although they nevertheless have a habit of taking over at times.

None of this means that decisions cannot be made within the social forum, or it's meetings. The emphasis is on forum - people within it can come to decisions, and join together to work on actions and ideas. But the forum itself strives to be as neutral as possible - within the boundary of valuing humanity above all else.

The DNA of the social forum has three key genes:


 * To make sure as much input as possible comes from 'below' - meaning that SSF should provide the structure, but the City of Sheffield should provide the content.


 * But that this does not obfuscate power at the centre: for example, there is an SSF working group. This, and any other groups that organise SSF things from time to time, must adhere to PITAR: Participation, Inclusiveness, Transparency, Accountability and Respect for others.  (This applies also to the SSF budget.)


 * The social forum itself will not make any decisions as a body - e.g. 'The Sheffield Social Forum supports x / condemns y'. This rule has a simple reason for existing: so that a social forum cannot become a place for power struggles.  Everything that social forumers do aims to make this so.  It is the reason for the first two 'genes'.  (The SSF logo will still appear on posters for meetings that have a relation to the SSF, though - we still have to build brand awareness! But the logo's presence doesn't mean that the SSF has taken any formal decision to support something; just that the forum has played a role in making it happen.  Nickpicking?  Yup! Sue me.)

It may appear ridiculous - even bloody stupid - NOT to support certain things, particularly when each individual involved supports them. After all, what could possibly be wrong with saying 'Sheffield Social Forum condemns the Iraq War'. The answer is, roughly -

a) There are plenty of organisations where you can take a vote on motions: go and join one.

b) If we go down that road, the social forum becomes a place for power struggles. Once it's done that, it stops being a social forum.

The common reply to this is: 'well, that's never going to change the world! We need action!'

And action can result from Social Forums - indeed, that's their key purpose! But, when alliances are made within it, they MUST step outside of it to act. Use the space, but don't abuse it.

If you can manage to organise a vanguard within it, then good luck to you. The social forum has a very specific role in the global justice movement, and it's not to be a party or a vanguard.

Hence the space itself must be organised to heighten interaction and communication as much as possible. There should be as few occasions for people being in silent rows, just listening, as possible.

But these precepts are being dictated to us!

Kind of. But it comes down to definition. The definition of 'social forum' as something that's not a locus of power has been there from the start. And, yes, it was a small group who decided on the [Charter]. But then, it was quite a small group that came up with Marxism: this doesn't in itself make it anti-democratic, as long as the idea is open to contestation and argument.

Anyone can go down to the free market of ideas, pick up something, and have a play around. The same goes for social forums. The idea is evolving. After London 2004, there's a definite sense of


 * 1) there being no way of avoiding the power-hungry grabbing power and then shouting 'we're not a locus of power!'
 * 2) so we need to come up with structures that guarantee this won't happen.

At the London ESF, more than ever before, the contest between the 'horizontals' and the 'verticals' was visible, and acrimonious. The social forum process became a locus of power... but it has meant learning for a lot of us.

The complexity of issues around power are huge. To naval-gaze for a moment, I 'suffer' from the same problem as many others in the social justice movement: I got educated, I'm white, I'm male. Straight away, there's a power imbalance that's difficult to escape. Should I therefore exclude myself from all activity?

Hmm... I guess that's why I like the social forum movement. If relatively powerful individuals (relative to most people in the world - poor, overworked and bullied) cannot escape their power, they should build spaces where others can begin to get their power back.

They should not, in my opinion, claim to have the answer to everything: 'we lack only the blind support of the masses. If we can get that, our vision for the masses will become a reality. And then we'll give up power. Because, as you'll have noticed, we're very good at giving up power.'

(Who can I be talking about?)

Thurs 4th again: what on earth is happening?
Didn't quite mean that last lot to be so waffly. But that's journals for ya.

This journal, more than being a wiffly waffly analysis, is meant to chart what happens with an attempt to have a local social forum that's based on reflection about the whole movement.

The local 'conditions' in Sheffield cannot be avoided if we're to make this happen. With a big event like the ESF, it's easy for it to become a 'parallel world' that has no contact with the world it purports to address. This can happen on the local level too - I think it did last year.

Let's see how we get on...

Friday 5th November: 'there'll be no need to protest...'
Winston Churchill - election broadcast (May, 1945)

"I must tell you that a socialist policy is abhorrent to British ideas on freedom. There is to be one State, to which all are to be obedient in every act of their lives. This State, once in power, will prescribe for everyone: where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say, what views they are to hold, where their wives are to queue up for the State ration, and what education their children are to receive. A socialist state could not afford to suffer opposition - no socialist system can be established without a political police. They (the Labour government) would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo."

I like this - one idea of what socialism could mean. And perhaps one that's so ingrained in the idea, that the term should be dropped.

I remember speaking to someone from Worker's Power. I asked them,

'If you have your revolution, and the Party has power - if, say, some people in Sheffield wanted to go to your seat of power to protest, who would they hire coaches off? Would there be government supplied coaches specifically for the purpose?'

'Oh, there'd be no need to protest,' he replied.

This gets to the heart of the kind of socialism that Churchill was painting a caricature of. Normal politics would stop, it is presumed, after the revolution. Everything would be perfect - no need to protest. The vanguard in power would be the spiritual head of the working class: any resistance would merely be reactionary elements, who must be dispatched for the greater good.

But what does a world look like where people are free to set up their own local production systems - ones that are decentralised, owned by the workers, with democratic control over amenities and infrastructure? Is this anarcho-syndicalism? Bloody hell, I hope not - the term's absolutely miserable!

Anyway - I use the quote to indicate everything that the social forum movement is NOT. Everything that, now, it is trying to innoculate itself against.

And how do we do that? Use liberal precepts? A separation of powers, a limitation placed on the size of organisation?

Then you're left with a similar problem that the neoliberals face: designing the structures for the kinds of freedom you want in the world. Organising for self-organisation...

Oh, Clement Attlee's [reply] to Churchill is great:

"The Prime Minister made much play last night with the rights of the individual and the dangers of people being ordered about by officials. I entirely agree that people should have the greatest freedom compatible with the freedom of others. There was a time when employers were free to work little children for sixteen hours a day. I remember when employers were free to employ sweated women workers on finishing trousers at a penny halfpenny a pair. There was a time when people were free to neglect sanitation so that thousands died of preventable diseases. For years every attempt to remedy these crying evils was blocked by the same plea of freedom for the individual. It was in fact freedom for the rich and slavery for the poor. Make no mistake, it has only been through the power of the State, given to it by Parliament, that the general public has been protected against the greed of ruthless profit-makers and property owners."

Thursday 25th November: what the bloody hell is my politics, anyway?
I seem to have turned into a conservative. There's all this stuff going on in Burngreave - they want to knock it down in order to regenerate it. And now I find myself saying, 'No! wait! There are networks of trade there that have grown organically over time! You break them and you'll destroy the place!'

This isn't quite true of course: it would be nice to think that the local economic and social vibrancy of Burngreave would be a rock against which the economic orthodoxy of 'inward investment, inward investment, inward investment' would break like water on... um, well - a rock.

But that ain't what will happen, unless something is done. Compulsory purchase orders will go through - and who knows what the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act has done to change the way this will work. Businesses and homes will be bought up for 10% above market price - a price that's just dropped 20% or more because of the 'Master Plan' they'll be carrying through...

And there'll be no assessment of the economic impact. Abstract economic theory will be conserved - and the organic mess of Burngreave's regeneration will be smashed to bits, in selective places.

The process of regeneration itself can drive prices up too much - the Master-Plan will compound the problem a hundred-fold.

The approach shouldn't be to wait for clemency from the powers that be. What's needed is to show - clearly, unquestionably - that the plan they have is just bonkers on toast.

Of course, they may well respond -

'Ah, now, don't be worried! This is a long-term plan, and may even never happen - certainly not in the form you see. Do not worry yourself at all...'

There will be phasing, 'decanting', a little bit of benevolent neglect... and a constant reassurance that it's all fine, and of course we're listening to your concerns and taking them into account.

Nah. More is needed. To quote Buckminster Fuller - "you never change things fighting against the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete."

---

... which is where I come back to the question of politics. What exactly am I arguing for here? Some sort of return to idyllic organic communities? An unquestioning defence of the way things are, against the rampaging rationality of modernity? A desparate and ultimately futile attempt to stop progress, to hold back the sea?

Others, perhaps, would see it more like building a barricade against the incessant onset of neoliberalism - the council, the masterplan steering group and LDA Urban Design all just agents in the ever-spreading matrix of total capitalism, turning more and more of us into cashcows and workdogs, sucking the money and the life out of the community for the sake of a filthy buck...

I would be interested to know what yer average Trot party would say. Here we are, getting all het up about defending small shopkeepers - the petty bourgeoisie, surely!

Anyway, I think I might stop writing now...

Friday 10th June 2005: Peace-in-the-Park eve, 10.30pm
Hell. Long time no write. In a reflective mood, so apologies for navel-gazing.

Peace in the Park tomorrow. As with CIRCA, a few things got their dates shifted about to coincide with the G8 Justice and Home Affairs ministers coming next week. That was an alignment that's made a helluva lot of things happen. There'll be a march tomorrow morning, a critical mass. The speakeasy is now going to be a chaotic, autonomista direct-action-tastic something. Exactly what kind of something, I have to say that I have no idea. But there's a lot of energy.

I don't feel like I've had the energy for it, though. Memories of Live Aid come back to me, bought back by Geldof's crusade this time around. That was in 1985; I would have been 10 or 11. But I remember it surprisingly well - that sense that anything was possible. That the world could somehow be saved, the famine stopped.

Live Aid raised, at the last estimate, £100 million. I won't go in search of exact figures for how much we get from developing countries. The point - that disparity between pissing in the wind and the feeling of profound change that we seek worries me. The G8 come to Sheffield, and that's what some people want too - a profound battle. And who wouldn't? Who doesn't want to live in interesting times...?

The circus will come and go. What will happen then? The same material conditions will remain - ones like those described by Naomi Klein in her Guardian article today. In some places, like Bolivia, people will fight to stop their wealth being siphoned away. But it feels like enclosure.

I'm hoping tomorrow will give hope. It's gonna be a strange week - attempting to revive the social forum from it's corner: but will people who want to oppose the G8 see the same need, or find the same profundity, from fighting the retail enclosure of Burngreave, Onyx's enclosure of our green future, or some huge property company's enclosure of our housing? Time will tell.