[GPSCC-chat] Notes From the US Social Forum -- Part 2 -- "The Workshop"

[WB4D23 at aol.com]

NOTES  FROM THE 2010 U. S. SOCIAL FORUM – Part 2 (“The Workshop”) 
Introduction 
July  4, 2010  This is the second of two  reports from my attending the U. 
S. Social Forum (USSF) in Detroit, Michigan  this year in connection with 
attending the Annual National Meeting (ANM) of the  Green Party of the United 
States (GPUS) National Committee member (I am a  delegate from the Green 
Party of California).  Specifically, this is about the workshop  that sprouted 
the email thread “The Green Party is collaborating with  progressive 
democrats?”  The  workshop was held on Thursday afternoon, June 24, 2010, and was 
live streamed by  digital video / internet technology as it occurred.  I do 
not know if it is archived  somewhere.  The following are my  impressions and 
opinions about that meeting.  Other individuals who were present at  the 
workshop, or who viewed the video feed, can write their own impressions  
whether in agreement or not of my comments. 
On  June 18, 2010, the workshop was described on the GPUS NC votes email 
list as  follows – 
“Five  organizations have collaborated to organize a “progressive strategy 
dialogue” at  the United States Social Forum (http://www.ussf2010.org) in 
Detroit, Michigan.  The dialogue will be one of 50 People’s Movement 
Assemblies during the USSF. It  will take place on Thursday afternoon, June 24th, 
from 1 to 5:30 pm in Cobo  Hall, room W2-67. 
The  dialogue was initiated by the Independent Progressive Politics 
Network, which  has organized similar dialogues a number of times over the past 
decade.  Co-sponsors are the Green Party of the United States, League of 
Revolutionaries  for a New America, Progressive Democrats of America and the 
Program on  Corporations, Law and Democracy. 
Three  major issues will be addressed: 
•  what can be done to stimulate independent, grassroots activism around 
key issues  like unemployment, the housing crisis, racial justice, the climate 
crisis,  corporate control of elections, immigrant rights, war and empire 
and universal  health care; 
•  an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the progressive wing of 
the  Democratic Party as far as the building of a popular progressive 
movement;  and, 
•  how to develop a “united progressives” network that brings together 
Greens and  other third party activists, progressive Democrats, and labor, 
community and  issue-based organizers into an on-going, independent, progressive 
alternative to  our corporate-dominated political system.? 
This  description was followed by a list of participants who had committed 
to attend  and an open invitation for additional participants. 
The  title of the workshop as listed in the US Social Forum schedule was “
Stimulating  Grassroots Activism on Massive Scale – A Progressive Dialogue”. 
  
The  Workshop 
The gathering began by introductions of  various convenors.  This meeting 
was  explained as an extension of previous smaller informal meetings among 
activists  facilitated through the Independent Political Parties Network 
(IPPN).  Then the rest of us took our turns for  quick individual introductions.  
There were a lot of Green Party members, some former Green Party  
activists, individuals who identified themselves as New Party activists, members  of 
the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), a member of the Libertarian  
Party, and a few persons who did not identify with any political party.  After 
that go around, there were three  roughly ten minute presentations on the 
three topics that had been listed in the  GPUS list announcement.  Each topic  
had two presenters who had about four minutes each to give their rap.  Not 
surprisingly, under the  circumstances, these presentations were vague and 
largely unfocused.  I don’t remember the details of any of  them. 
Following  the presentations, discussion was opened up to the rest of us in 
the room.  I do not remember most of the specific  comments, but the 
conversation veered mostly to the second topic.  Comments divided between Green 
Party  members who either were strongly against any kind of collaboration with 
any kind  of Democratic Party member(s) and those who asserted that 
localized or  issue-oriented (e.g. single payer healthcare) was appropriate and  
desirable.  PDA members comments in  reply were that they were a separate 
organization from the Democratic Party, but  were Democratic Party members 
engaging in an “inside/outside” strategy that  included trying to advocate 
progressive causes and positions within the  Democratic Party while at the same 
time working with other organizations,  including members of other political 
parties, on those issues of common concern  and agreement.  New Party 
members  basically said they were forming a new political party.  One person who 
identified herself as a  former Green Party member stated she had left the GP 
because it had been  endorsing and supporting Democratic Party candidates. 
(?!) The “dialogue” was  individuals stating their personal positions.  
About midway into the length of the  workshop, a “ten minute break” was agreed 
upon. 
During  the break, the conveners informally discussed what had happened in 
the first  session.  They seemed to agree that  the discussion had spiraled 
away from their own preferences in that it had been  so focused on the 
subject of working or not working with Democrats rather than  the other broader 
issues.  After the  break, about 20 of the 50 or so people who had been in 
the room returned.  Discussion was directed to proposals  that were to be 
submitted from the workshop to a larger plenary session.  Those topics were the 
need for public  financing of campaigns, ending the concept of corporate 
personhood, and  additional items I do not remember.  I have no idea what was 
done with the items consensed upon by those of us  who returned for session 
two and participated in that  discussion. 
Critique 
The  newsprint handout for the US Social Forum described that convergence 
of people  and organizations as follows:  “…many arteries of thought come 
together as we and millions around the  world join in a path towards justice.  
This path puts people over profits and values actions over  pontifications. 
 This is not a  conference, but rather a political process that increases 
our collective power  and resilience by strengthening our communities and 
weaving ourselves into a  movement that transcends oppression and opposition….”
 
I  do not know the process for submitting workshop topics.  I do not know 
if the title appearing in  the USSF Schedule was a stopgap topic that got 
changed after the schedule was  printed (kindest possible interpretation).  In 
my opinion, the workshop content came nowhere near the workshop title  in 
the schedule.  Apparently, the  individuals who attended the meeting came 
because of their existing or past  political party activities.  This  workshop 
would not have made much sense and would have probably been judged a  waste 
of time by “Movement”, issue-focused or community organizing  activists.  
But the mis-titling of  the meeting still rankles, if only as a matter of 
principle.  A proper topic might have been  “Exploring Possibilities for 
Progressive Political Activists to Work Together –  A Dialogue.”  Given what was  
presented and what occurred, that would have been an honest, modest  
expectations, indication about what the meeting intended. 
The  workshop planners both tried to do too much and tried to do too 
little.  Maybe this was a result of process  negotiating the meeting; maybe it was 
the result of planning by committee.  I don’t know.  It does seem to me 
that, given the  context of the US Social Forum, it was a lost opportunity for 
everybody in the  room.  If there is anything that  would have been 
pertinent for discussion and presentation to the plenary of  attendees, it is the 
question:  “How  do we make electoral politics seem relevant to mass social 
movements and their  participants?”  That should have  been the focus of at 
least the second session of the workshop, not general  electoral reform issues 
or topics that were going to be covered in other  meetings.  What this 
workshop could  have done is developed a unity statement to take to the floor of 
the convergence  stating that progressive political parties and electoral 
activism are a  necessary part of moving forward the progressive 
anti-oppression agenda.  So, sadly, I view the meeting as  interesting but unproductive. 
  
Coda 
These  comments were written mainly as a report back to activists in the 
Green Party of  California cagreens.org Also see Green Party of the United of 
the United States _www.gp.org_ (http://www.gp.org/)    
A  Progressive Democrats of America pdamerica.org glossy postcard handout 
describes  PDA Priorities as:  End War and  Occupations, Redirect Funding; 
Healthcare for All; Economic and Social Justice;  Clean, Fair, Transparent 
Elections; Stop Global Warming; Accountability and  Justice.  Certainly all 
consistent  with Green Party positions.  The PDA  also brought well conceived 
posters and stickers.   
I  tried to engage a New Party activist in the hallway during the workshop 
break as  he was distributing leaflets.  I  pointed out to him that the 
statements of New Party members during the workshop  made it appear that they 
were engaging in a “cult of personality” because all  they were saying was 
that they were following the principles of Ralph  Nader.  He said no they  
weren’t.  I said, well, that’s what  it sounds like.  He said I was  refusing 
to hear what he was saying and stalked away.  One of the New Party leaflets 
contains  references to various progressive issues and also expressly states 
that “this  political party shall be created and founded upon the work and 
philosophy of  Ralph Nader, responding to Mr. Nader’s call for the 
organization of a new  political voice to speak for those who are voiceless in this 
society.”  …So much for the efficacy of the  Revolutionary Workers Party 
(among others).        
I  asked a Green Party officer why there was no GPUS literature table with  
staff.  I was told that part of the  US Social Forum approach was not to 
seem to be endorsing any political parties  by only allowing a literature 
drop.  But I saw a table with a person behind it for the Socialist Workers  
Party.  And I heard that a Green  Party member engaged in some anarchist 
activism by being at the table with the  GPUS newspapers. 
In  Struggle! 
Warner  S. Bloomberg III   Califonia  Delegate to the GNC 
_wsb3gpus at aol.com_ (mailto:wsb3gpus at aol.com)  
All  opinions stated above are those of the writer,  only.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20100705/67b2b7bc/attachment.html>