Reflections on the U.S. Social Forum: Three Cautions for the Future of the Left

Published on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Reflections on the US Social Forum: Three Cautions for the Future of the Left

by Sally Kohn

A few weeks ago, I attended the first-ever United States Social Forum, June 27 to July 1, 2007 in Atlanta, Georgia. It was an awe-inspiring event, bringing together over 15,000 grassroots activists from every issue area and every corner of the United States. And while the conferences

I'm used to anyway are populated by slick white men in suits who work for glossy advocacy organizations in Washington, the Social Forum was dominated by members of community-based organizations who more often wore colorful matching t-shirts detailing their group's origins and their proud participation in Atlanta. And as far as I could tell, most of the participants were people of color, again a far cry from the elite and exclusive gatherings that often claim to represent "the left".

Without question, we need a profound, broad-based movement for cultural, political and economic transformation of the United States - and we need it soon. And being at the US Social Forum prickled my skin with the inexplicable but tangible sense that a social justice movement in the United States is really possible. Like static electricity hanging pregnant in the air, there is an exciting potential for movement to spark.

But in addition to displaying the many parts of our social justice infrastructure up to the task — grassroots organizing groups and popular education work and strong, community leaders humming all around us like charged particles — the US Social Forum also revealed some of the worst of our field. Sectarian bad habits kept us fighting among ourselves and scrutinizing our own navels rather than using the historic gathering space of the forum to actually challenge ourselves and each other, articulate a bold vision for the future and develop a shared strategy for action. If we're ever to build a truly powerful, multi-issue movement for economic, political and social justice, we must overcome the following barriers that loomed large at the US Social Forum - which I attribute to dangerous patterns across the left more so than the particular organizers of the Forum, many of whom raised the same concerns.

1. We must be allies, not enemies!

At the US Social Forum, one group of immigrant-led organizations nastily attacked another because of disagreements over pursuing immigration reform strategy. A Jewish woman who tried to make a statement sympathetic with Palestinians was publicly attacked as anti-Arab and anti-Islam. One peace activist was attacked with a pie was thrown in her face by others calling her a sell-out.

As someone once said, "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" Is that really where to best concentrate our energy, on attacking those who are slightly to the left or right of us on any given issue but generally otherwise in agreement? Don't we have more important things to do?

At one point, I left the Social Forum to visit the museum dedicated to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King, who was heartily evoked throughout the forum, preached non-violence and compassion for our opponents. He also was attacked by many on the far-left as a sell-out in his day, for working with the federal government to pass imperfect yet necessary civil rights legislation. Are the immigrant rights groups who pushed for reform legislation any different? Would King have had a pie thrown in his face at the US Social Forum today?

History has taught us that successful social movements have involved a spectrum of ideologies. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers made King and others' demands seem "reasonable" and thus politically acceptable to center-right elites. Social movements that rely on totalitarian dogmatism fail. See, e.g., communism everywhere. Before the US Social Forum, I thought the American left had learned this lesson and believed in compassion and respect for differences. Now I'm not so sure. The US Social Forum was a hot bed of ugly and disrespectful sectarian attacks lobbed by the self-righteous far-left against the merely left-of-center-left. Is it possible that we could appreciate the need for diversity and difference of opinion within the left and cultivate a new habit of respectful yet robust debate - rather than pie throwing?

2. Identity does not equal politics

Political correctness and identity politics have been much maligned on the left and right. At their best, these notions challenge us to remedy past habits of exclusion and elitism, include the full spectrum of human diversity in our movement building and society in general, and give voice to multiple perspectives and not just those that generally dominate. But identity politics fails us when we treat racial, ethnic and sexual diversity as a proxy for political and ideological diversity. They're not necessarily interchangeable.

On each plenary at the US Social Forum, for instance, there were as many as eight speakers who were extremely diverse in terms of identity but barely so in terms of politics. Speakers who looked different from one another nonetheless repeated the same rhetoric over and over again. Much of it was identity-based shout-outs, how we have to connect this issue or that with the GLBT community or we can't ignore the plight of women in one situation or another. That's all important — the whole point to identity politics is to include in the political conversation and process those who have been horribly excluded for so long. But we can't stop at the politics of recognition. If we don't go any deeper — to not just talk about why we have to connect our issues but have the challenging conversations about how we make these connections in practice, to not just care about who is on stage but also what they have to say — otherwise, aren't we the self-imposed victims of the tokenism we say we reject?

And if at a gathering of 15,000 left-wing social justice activists who in their daily work and struggle are trying to bring voice and power to those most often left behind, our main internal priority is still the main fight to be fought internally, see point #1 above. Sure, some of the straight folks at the forum could use more analysis around issues of homophobia and gender identity. And sure, the non-Native folks there probably need to learn much more about Native history and struggles. But frankly just trotting out a diverse set of faces and giving rhetorical lip service to these issues isn't much progress in that direction. Rather than saying simply, "We have to respect and include Native communities," followed by a show of solidarity in the form of applause, what if we were really engaged and challenged to think about why Native communities and issues are often last on our laundry list of progressive causes, or what it means for American activists who so often despise the nation-state to nonetheless champion Native sovereignty? What if our solidarity came in the form of rigorous thinking, rather than ceremonial clapping?

The point of identity politics isn't to rank the issues or perspectives of one community as more important than another but, rather, to use the often intense experiences of inequality and discrimination faced by some communities as a lens for better understanding the injustice faced by all of us. In other words, diversity and inclusion are vital but we can't just stop there.

3. We need positive alternatives, not just critique

Along the same lines, we have to do more than just complain about the problems in society. Analysis and critique are very important. We need to understand structural racism, how it's perpetuated in society's political and cultural crevices and the polluting impact it has in our communities. We need to understand economic inequality, how the economy is designed to produce injustice, how that injustice is manifest. But cathartic though it might be, it's not enough to just complain and critique. If we believe another world is possible and are about building power in communities to achieve that alternative future, then we have to set about the task of actually describing what that future should be.

That's hard. We know what we're against, but we're not entirely sure what we're for. And to the point above, it's much easier to prove you belong in the progressive club by throwing down some fierce analysis of war and militarism and the connection to the prison industrial complex. But what's your alternative solution? Is war necessary and sometimes just? If we can't prevent all crimes, do we think prison is sometimes okay or what's our alternative? At the level of critique and analysis, we're damn good at exchanging rhetorical hi-fives. But what if you and I disagree at the level of vision? Or worse, what if I don't even have a vision at all? It's a much more vulnerable position to be in.

At a meeting I was at recently, a grassroots activist said, "We wouldn't know what to do with power if we got it. We haven't had that meeting yet!" Power, of course, isn't a end but a means to and end. What will the world look like when we, the people, have the power to change it? Critique and analysis are important but not enough. Part of building power is planning for power. And we must build our future vision along the way. From the worker-owned cooperative businesses to models of participatory democracy, examples are springing up across the country of an alternative vision in action. Our power comes not only from critiquing what is but envisioning what will be and inspiring millions with the vivid reality that another world is possible. At social justice gatherings going forward, we should do more than dwell on the many problems in society and talk about how we need alternatives. We should discuss what those alternatives actually are.

Comments or critiques of this article are welcome and invited. Please send them to skohn@communitychange.org . Pies? I prefer banana cream.
Sally Kohn is the director of the Movement Vision Lab at the Center for Community Change, supporting grassroots leaders across the United States to explore and debate visionary ideas for the future.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Discuss this story Discuss this story Printer Friendly Version Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
12 Comments so far

1.
Rodso64 July 18th, 2007 12:19 pm

Huzzah, my lady! Your three points are well taken. I worry, though, about the Left's ability to take heed. Twenty years ago, I worked as a volunteer at the California State Democratic Party convention, and I saw much of the same thing: Many great ideas and many good intentions hamstrung by petty bickering. Mostly over who deserved the title of "Most Abused Victims of All Time".

"Political Correctness" is a much-abused term that, at its heart, really means simply "fashionable politeness". I have not EVER been a fan of fashion, but I remain a staunch defender of politeness in human affairs. It's this simple, folks: How good or bad the world turns out actually really does come down to a question of how much respect (yes, I'll use the 'flabby' word) niceness are YOU, as an individual, going to show THAT PERSON in front of you now, regardless of how different OR alike you both are.
2.
eshu July 18th, 2007 12:22 pm

What you identify as the "far left" attacking merely the "left of center" is in reality a mismash of perspectives.

Your critique of the attacks on the pro-Palestinian statement dont' make sense if we do not know what was said. A lot of people on the "left" who imagine themselves pro-Palestinian quite naively continue to endorse a "peace" process which is overseen by the west and Israel. To critique such a position is not to be "pure" in one's politics, it is simply to recognize concrete conditions on the ground and call for clarity. The Palestinians have a full and unconditional right to autonomy, whether Israel or the United States recognize it or not, and hence, any resistance they mount, despite the contradictions of such a resistance, must be given supportive criticism, not merely critical support. The difference between the two positions is complex and immense, as at the end of the day, no one in the west has anything to say about Palestine short of full support for liberation that anyone in the Middle East should have to listen to anyway. As for the rights of the Jewish population to a homeland, that too should be respected, but it must come with full recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people to return. That comes first. There has never been any rhyme or reason behind the concept that Palestine should pay for what the European did to European Jewery sixty years ago, and those who do not understand that little piece don't understand much about the debacle in the Middle East right now. So, unless you'd care to outline what the actual dispute was in the situation you alluded to, your lack of detail hazes the issue, and incidentally, due to its lack of clarity, comes off as an attack and adds to the sectarian behavior you are so allegedly concerned about.

As for the pie incident, Medea and her supporters need to get a sense of humor. To suggest she has never been guilty of grandstanding, or that her schtick in front of the camera isn't exhausting at moments, is ridiculous. She got a pie in the face because she's well deserving of same. She is a pompous ass much of the time, and ridicule is an appropriate response to that. In fact, it's the American way, if you want to get culture specific. Be glad you're not in a tendency that just meets Benjamin's self-righteousness with a baseball bat. You know they're out there.

Speaking of the American way, the splitting and arguing you're looking at is a natural part of a political culture steeped in spectacular reference and political leadership that spends much of its time posing for the cameras. That's not going to be outgrown in a short time simply by calling for unity. There are serious political disputes that must get worked out, concrete questions that must get addressed, platforms to be constructed. That won't come without splits. If you actually believe that you're going to build a majoritarian movement that's going to overturn this mess simply by calling for unity, you are quite mistaken, and need to look at real U.S. history. It will be a minority faction, united around a real concrete program, that will carry this thing forward. It will attain majority support only through long, hard, experience and error, and constantly correcting itself through concrete tactics, as opposed to Medea- type media events.

And if you spent any time studying or analyzing the history of communism, which you denigrate as a totalitarian movement, but which, up to this point in history, has been the only successful mass movement in opposition to imperialism and the corporate state, you'd understand that. Communism must be understood as an outgrowth of the capitalist war on the world, otherwise, you'll never understand it. If you oppose stalinism, you have a responsibility to get clear on the actual consequences of capitalist mayhem. New Orleans is the truest indicator of who these bastards are. Get busy studying.

You've got a lot of damn homework to do just like the rest of us, so you need not get all righteous in your calls for unity. Unity brokers are every bit as capable of being sectarian and vicious as any "ultra left" group. As a veteran of the labor movement, and having been on the receiving end of "mainstream" union thuggery and it's unity broking friends, I can assure you that political purity is a disease not unknown to the center. No one was more of a centrist then Joseph Stalin. So cool your jets. There's a long, hard road ahead. You're not anywhere near as open or prepared as you present yourself being.

—M. Hureaux, Seattle
3.
eshu July 18th, 2007 12:28 pm

As for the first commenter here, the "democrats" aren't even in it, and haven't been for a long time. The democrats are full of beans, they were twenty years ago when I was still working with them, and they exist to confuse and mislead. Screw that noise.

Respect for your perspective compels me to be honest with you, however painful we both may find it. Anything else is just passive aggressive bullshit.

Finally, both the columnist, and her respondee, need to understand Medea Benjamin doesn't even reach up to MLK's shoelaces. No one's talking political purity here. We're talking integrity. And she hasn't found it yet, despite her posing.
4.
Bobus July 18th, 2007 12:41 pm

To start is to stop thinking in terms of right and left as this is exactly what the ruling powers want everybody to think. There is great but unpublished work of Paul Ray that put the political map in much better perspective and this is not based on just theoretical speculation.
http://www.culturalcreatives.org/Library/docs/NewPoliticalCompassV73.pdf

We also need to understand what unites all the movements. Clearly, it is rebellion against the ruling Moderns culture and its principles which are embodied by all the ruling powers. Yet, that rebellion always starts in one particular area of life. This is represented by particular social movements as against the war, saving the earth, civil rights, etc. Individually, rebellion seems to be spreading to other parts of our individual lives, gradually but accelerating. That is why those who oppose third world exploitation can also be involved, for instance, in organics or alternative medicine. And vice versa.

Sally is right that the problem, the ultimate problem is that we know what we fight against but we don't know what we want to replace it with. Apparently, "it is all about economy, stupid". And it is, because we all want to live and most of us want to live well. Here is the really bad news. Is there a realistic economic model that can address goals of all these various individual "against" movements? If we want to save the earth, how can we support lives of 6.5 billions people? Something must die.

Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans fight who will be the next version of the rulling Moderns powers…
5.
conscience July 18th, 2007 12:44 pm

Articles like this of lesser quality have from time to time given me concern about whose minding the store at Common Dreams. Democrats can surely take criticism . . .

But the old Republican rag of a story that attacking hate speech is merely attacking politically correct expression simply paves the way for the fascist Supreme Court to now tell us that "Integration is Discrimination."
6.
alamac July 18th, 2007 12:54 pm

Yeah. It's the "herding cats" problem–lefties are damned independent thinkers who each have fervently-held beliefs and the will to back them up.

So we are cursed by our big advantage–we are thinkers who live by the mantra "Don't follow leaders & watch your parking meters". Sheep follow blindly and as a pack. Cats, on the other hand, do what they think is right, the rest of the world be damned.

I have thought long and hard about this and don't see a solution. Ironically, it may take a Neil Young-style "Leader" to create the buzz and will to overcome our parochialism and work together (for once) to accomplish real change.

Note to Neil, though: It isn't Obama, and not because he's "too young", but because he's too korporatist. And it isn't a "woman" because the only one in the race is the hyper-korporatist Klintstone.

So back to the drawing board. Signed– >^..^<
7.
Vern July 18th, 2007 1:13 pm

"The US Social Forum was a hot bed of ugly and disrespectful sectarian attacks lobbed by the self-righteous far-left against the merely left-of-center-left. Is it possible that we could appreciate the need for diversity and difference of opinion within the left and cultivate a new habit of respectful yet robust debate - rather than pie throwing?"

Garbage. Go to any of the "progressive" forums on the net and you will see the "far-left" constantly hounded, sneered at, condemned, red-baited, censored and thrown off by "the merely left-of-center-left" (note how the author frames the far-left as self-righteous and the centrists as "merely")Cindy Sheehan is a case in point. There is more venom directed at her by mindless centrists than targeting the Bush administration. It is amazing how people are so easily hoodwinked and absorb the talking points targeting the Left. Of course, that is what both parties fear the most–a populist uprising championing social and economic justice and end to imperial looting that drain or treasury for the enrichment of the few. FDR actually preserved capitalism by adopting some socialism, thereby providing checks and balances, but there is increasing unfairness and a rolling back of protections and accountability–and little room in the Democratic party anymore for true advocates to weld any influence. It is all bought and sold. So, I take some offense that the author says we should play nice with the centrists–they don't play nice with us–I have seen "Commondreams" referred to as the Left's equiviliant of Fox News", when they are closer in philosophy to Fox news.

The Left needs and should have the right to stridently say no to a "Left" who aligns itself more often than not with the Right. We are not allies when they are the ones who drag down Nader, joke about Kucinich, dismiss Michael Moore, attack Cindy Sheehan and demand that we line up behind Hillary Clinton.
8.
John Freeman July 18th, 2007 1:16 pm

Socialism, as in the Northern European countries or as emerging in South America sounds like the best solution to me. Communism and Capitalism are both proven failures, countries who opted for Socialism seem to have a lot more happy people living there. I do not really care if the rich are not rich enough, it's the status of the poor that define a country. Ours? Well, just look around and see what you think.
9.
gleibman July 18th, 2007 2:04 pm

Regarding point 3, for a positive alternative to capitalism/corporatism, check out parecon (participatory economics), a vision largely shaped by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. It contains ideas from socialism, but diverges from classical Marxism in several ways, for example, it replaces the Marxist two class model of proletarians and capitalists with one including a "coordinator" class–people who, without owning businesses (as capitalists do), are still a priveleged elite in that they have power over other workers as managers, lawyers, doctors, etc. Parecon is discussed and debated at http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm.
10.
dponcy July 18th, 2007 2:22 pm

Vern, I don't know where you come from politically, but I think you have a misunderstanding of what people are talking about when they refer to the "far-left".

The far left I know are the one's who "drag down Nader, joke about Kucinich, dismiss Michael Moore, attack Cindy Sheehan and demand that we line up behind" …The Revolution. That is, their particular sectarian vision of The Revolution. Some of these folks are Trotskyists, some anarchists, some environmentalists, some other ists, but they are all absolutist and unbending about their issue, or their "analysis". To them, Kucinich, et al, are all sell-outs.

As an organizer on the ("sellout" democratic socialist) left for over two decades, I can assure you that this divisiveness is rampant. Every group I have been involved with for more than a year or so has made itself irrelevent through this sectarian bickering.

This sectarianism, of course, is not limited to the "far left". It exists everywhere on the broader left, including the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, the Greens, etc.

Time for unity or death. We get to choose.
11.
dponcy July 18th, 2007 2:42 pm

12.
Vern July 18th, 2007 2:50 pm

It occured to me that I might be using the wrong scale within the context of the event, but it still holds true across the board. Sometimes I see this niche stuff at ANSWER rallies and it can be alienating, and groups like the Greens have become gated communities unto themselves–totally irrelevant. Some on the Left become so doctrinaire they don't even deal with in the moment situations. So, what good are they? The Left has to push to get their voices and ideas out there–what good is it to withdraw into isolated ivory towers? Don't know the answer but will continue to push.