[Ssf] Uni social forum?

Dan dan at aktivix.org
Thu Dec 2 11:46:54 GMT 2004


Hi Alison,

I've cc'd in the EU local social forum list, coz these issues need more 
talking about.

(Alison: again, sorry for my spiky e-mail last time I wrote: I was in 
the middle of a caffeine-fuelled article-writing marathon, and was 
suffering from e-mail diarrhoea.  It happens quite too often, 
unfortunately!)

Two things here.  One: Sheffield specific.  Two - Social forum movement 
thoughts.

First, on the question of campaign / facilitation space - (Alison:I 
think social forums can and should be more than a facilitating space. 
They should be more than talking shops - they should be linked with the 
labour movement too, and do stuff, run campaigns etc.)

I think some practical examples from recent times are beginning to make 
things a little clearer about how local social forums can work.

Campaigns can happen!  Wat *doesn't* happen is that the group has a list 
of possible campaigns, takes a vote on choosing one after debate, and 
then everyone gets behind it.  The process tends to be something more 
like this -

People come to meeting.  We listen to ideas.  Whoever is interested in a 
particular idea for action offers to help with something. 

I'm beginning to feel that this model is working.  Recently, we've had 
these things occur:

1.  The Disability Cuts meeting was finally held.  Dave, Kev and Jase 
did loads of work to make this happen (I only did a bit of fly-posting, 
most of which disappeared!)  It was a success in its central goal - 
another meeting has been arranged, and hopefully a network is forming 
around the issue.  (Sheffield Welfare Action Network, working title!)

2. Little things, like - someone came from Derby, and told us a story 
about some shenanigans going on in there.  Luckily, we had an old 
shop-floor veteran with us on the day, and he / I both knew two 
solicitors who would offer pro bono work for the kind of stuff going 
on.  No campaign though, but in future, you never know.

3. We learned about the Spital Hill master plan, which has led me to 
getting involved, and in the process of working for a new, participatory 
process there.  (Have a look at the pre-article that should be on 
Indymedia soon, if you've got a spare hour! -

http://wiki.sheffieldsocialforum.org.uk/SpitalHillStory

Burngreave has plenty of it's own organisations there doing stuff  - I 
don't think a 'Sheffield Social Forum' would ever be able to wade in 
there and do stuff.  But, in this case, acting as a forum has been 
beneficial.

So campaigns arise - and there's no reason why, if two or three 
committed people start something, the SSF can't act as a forum for 
that.  Me and Kev even had some argument over whether to put the SSF 
logo on campaign posters!  In the end, it seems obvious that we should - 
not because it's being done 'in the name of the members of the SSF', but 
because without the SSF, it wouldn't have happened - and we need to 
raise brand awareness!  From this point of view, although we don't 
formally 'campaign' in the sense of a party or an NGO, campaigning and 
action is what the SSF is all about.

It comes down to different styles of politics again.  I wrote this a 
while ago, dunno what people think -

"Are you socialists?"

Some people mistakenly call us the 'Sheffield Socialist Forum' - 
generally far right activists looking for a fight!  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.  [Alison - I'm not talking about Worker's 
Power!]

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.  (In practice, this often means that regular 
members bring a lot of the issues, but in Sheffield other issues often 
appear from surprising places...)

*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.)

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

Action can result from Social Forums - indeed, that's their key 
purpose.  If you can manage to organise a vanguard within it - if you 
can persuade others -  then good luck to you. But then take your party 
outside of the forum's space.  The social forum has a very specific role 
in the global justice movement, and it's not to be a party or a vanguard. 

"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 of 
Principles.  But then, it was quite a small group that came up with 
Marxism (Marx being perhaps one of the least influential!)  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, bullied, bombed or starved) cannot escape their power, 
they should build spaces where others can begin to get their power 
back.  There's no way around the fact that, as first-worlders, we are 
rich in social capital!  We have to be ethical investors.  (This might 
mean, for example, not in-fighting over the meaning of what's happening 
in Iraq.)

We should not, in my opinion, claim to have the answer to everything: 
'we lack only the 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.'

**********



Alison Higgins wrote:

>I think Steve has answered the point about the uni social forum - as far
>as I am aware it is an attempt to link up campaigns and campaigners at
>the uni, and do things together too. Yes, there is someone from Workers
>Power involved. I will probably see you all on Saturday at the local
>groups meeting so we can discuss these issues further but, re. Dan's
>point, I suppose I feel that what I think a social forum should be
>differs from what most of the key people in SSF think - i.e. I think
>social forums can and should be more than a facilitating space. They
>should be more than talking shops - they should be linked with the
>labour movement too, and do stuff, run campaigns etc. So yes I have
>taken a back seat but I'm still interested in what's going on and don't
>want to fall out with anybody!
>
>Alison
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ssf-bounces at lists.aktivix.org
>[mailto:ssf-bounces at lists.aktivix.org] On Behalf Of atw
>Sent: 01 December 2004 00:10
>To: ssf at lists.aktivix.org
>Subject: Re[2]: [Ssf] Uni social forum?
>
>
>
>noone> I don't know why there is a need for a sheffield social forum
>specificly
>noone> aimed at students, there is already a sheffield social forum open
>to
>noone> everyone and desperatly in need of abit of energy.
>
>
>It's a good point. The only reason I can think of for having a student
>SFis that everyone is in a similar location (eg. the Union). That
>means they can meet up easily and regularly at times which might not
>suit the wider community.
>
>steve
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ssf mailing list
>Ssf at lists.aktivix.org
>http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssf
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ssf mailing list
>Ssf at lists.aktivix.org
>http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssf
>  
>


-- 
07968 997861
0114 2412723

The true meaning of life is to plant trees,
under whose shade you do not expect to sit.




More information about the ssf mailing list