[fse-esf] Defending Hungarian activism on the ESF list

[tord.bjork at mjv.se]

Defending Hungarian activism on the ESF list

Two letters on this list, both with Hungarian actors as alone or together
with others as undersigned, 
have caused negative reactions. One addressed poverty, the welfare state
and capitalism, the other the 
terror attack in Norway against social democratic youth and governmental
buildings. Below I have 
copied the conversion to make it easier to follow the discussion.

The content in the negative reactions on both these statements are
worrisome for the state of affairs in 
the ESF process and the necessary alliance building to confront the present
crisis.

Attac Norway claims that there is only one ”proper” response to the terror
attack which they chose to 
label killings: increased democracy, increased tolerance and increased
humanity. A clear statement 
against the letter from the ESF network against right wing extremism is
made by saying that the analisis 
is not shared, instead Attac Norway fully support the analisis made by
their government. 

Francine Mestrum was strongly critical in a first letter seeing a video on
poverty to be shown at the 
Attac summer university ENA and a letter from one of the two Hungarian
Social Forums in April on the 
present crisis in Europe as sign of attempts to split the movement  ”We
need to join forces, not to 
divide”. Still after having recieved a response, she insist in that the
letter in April had a ”rather unhappy 
wording”. 

In both cases actors in Western Europe tell the Hungarians that their
analysis is not correct, they are not 
well informed and that it is necessary to state clearly that there are
differences of opinion. In the case of 
Mestrum the possibility of a split is even mentioned.

The bottom line is that there is a need for unity and in our case that
unity preferably should be based 
on some kind of interpretation of the WSF declaration as this is the basis
for the ESF process. One can 
have different views on how unity is achieved. Some stress ideological
unity, others claim unity is 
created by sharing knowledge. I believe in unity in practice. It is my
experience that in the real struggle 
you will find new friends, many times across ideological divisions. 

This means that it is good if there are differences in ideological views on
the present crisis. Rather than 
claiming that the Hungarian April letter had rather unhappy wording I see
it as a much needed 
contribution to the ESF process. Lets face the facts. Almost no
contributions are made to the common 
discussion that creates some responses. Very few have some hopes for the
ESF process while at the 
same time there is not much discussion between different movements at the
European level in other 
places either. In times of crisis organizations tend to stick to the
closest allies and are less open for 
broader and challenging discussions, at least if it implicates action. The
Italians set an interesting 
example with the mass mobilization during the refendum on privatization of
water, nuclear power and 
impunity for Berlusconi followed by the Genua+10 European wide initiative.
But it has so far caused no 
debate on this list.

So the problems are not the Hungarians, the question is how to respond in a
manner that will bring us 
further. I am an environmentalist which tend to give other perspectives for
god and bad than what the 
left have. We  are often more vague which is bad but tend less to split in
reformists versus 
revolutionaries which can be good and bad and finally we tend to have
visions about the future which 
necessarily includes a material dimension which is good. 

I do not share the views of the Hungarian April letter on one specific
point, I do not see the pratical nor 
political point in starting anticapitalist action day in October. We will
win the struggle because we are 
for something, not because we have a clever anlysisis enabling us to put a
name on the present 
economic system and want everybody to join us using our words. 

But when it comes to the core of the letter ”to restore the welfare state
is an illusion.”
 -
I cannot see this 
as in anyway less valuable than lets say the Genua+10 demands or what Attac
or Friends of the Earth 
states. Certainly I would not call it unhappy wording. Rather I would call
what one of the leading 
campaigners wrote recently on the official Friends of the Earth blog in
England as wrong and causing 
severe problems when stating we have to ”live happily with capitalism”. As
Friends of the Earth England 
does very good political work that rather could be interpreted as
questioning the present development 
model including capitalism this was a rather unhappy wording, the Hungarian
statement is not. 

There are at the present conjuncture a number of proposals put forward on
different issues to solve the 
social and ecological crisis. Reformist proposals are mass produced by
different think tanks red and 
green, sometimes also by organizations and indivduals. There is also the
Peoples assemblies to change 
everything by struggle from below organizing horizontally. Common is also
to claim that now is the 
time to declare anticapitalism as the essential message. How these small or
big struggles can be 
combined is not a simple task. It is worrisome if the Western Europeans
with their better funding can 
claim they have the ”positive message and a forward-looking concrete
proposal”. But if the conditions 
are so grim in many CEE countries that being positive is not the most
urgent message you have, should 
they keep their mouths shut?

It is maybe time to look the other way for positive examples. Repression
against popular movements is 
growing in all parts of Europe, whether organized non-parliamentary as at
the workplaces all over 
Europe were the employers brutalize the working conditions and try to make
it harder to organize trade 
unions and labor struggles or in the form of right wing extremist attacks
on the workers movements 
and immigrants. Or state repression during social conflicts of different
kinds or as at the climate 
summit in Copenhagen. Here Russia have set an example by uniting
antifascists with their roots in the 
punk scene, envrionmentalists, left wingers, journalists and liberals
against the repression during the 
omgoing Khimki forest battle. Groups ideologically far from, each other
have been able to unite in a 
way that sets an example for the rest of Europe and been able to shake the
government and lowered 
the level of repression. 

When it comes to right wing extremism CEE countries are also most severely
hit. According to the 
Europol statistics most  right wing terrorist attacs in recent years before
Oslo and Utøya have been 
made in Hungary. It is my feeling that we in Western Europe do not take the
ongoing crisis severe 
enough. Every decline in the ecosystems, the welfare state or when we face
growing repression of both 
hard and more invisible milder forms are met in the same way. The problems
are seen separate from 
each other and hopes for some at least partly positive solution are quickly
promoted by politicians and 
media. I CEE countries this possibility do not always exist. It is not only
a question of economy. When I 
went on tour to prepare ESF in Malmö I came and visited the two different
Hungarian Social Forum as 
well as the environmental movements and the Greens. The young activists in
the network that wrote the 
letter in April told me when I asked them about their daily life. Phone
calls were made to them with the 
message, we will kill you twice – first because you are a communist, then
because you are a jew. 
Furthermore it was also an issue of strength, being left was seen in
general as being weak among the 
youth, being right wing or right extremist was seen as the one who is
strong. 

Is there any reason at all for Norwegians, or for that matter people in any
other Western European 
countries to take the conclusions made by networks based on such extreme
circumstances as of 
importance in their country, or for that matter at European level? I mean
are not their circumstance and 
their conclusions a stage we have passed in the West? Or is it not? As I
claimed already in the example 
of the Khimki battle Russian activists are far more advanced than what
Danish and Swedish activists 
were in their response to state repression at the Summit in Copenhagen 2009
and Gothenburg 2001. 
Furthermore both state repressions took great steps backwards for popular
movements right to 
organize meeting and demonstrate. The roll back of the welfare state in
Sweden goes more quickly than 
in most other countries, the difference is due to that the level at the
beginning was quite better in 
terms of equality which now evaporates due to the neoliberal politics
carried out by both left and right 
governments. Things do not only go forward in Western Europe either and
sooner than we wish we 
might need some of the experiences in CEE countries to understand what is
going on. 

There are two worrisome aspects of what Mestrum and Attac Norway writes.
Lets take Attac Norway first. 
To split economy (or for that matter ecology) from politics is at the core
of the state ideology in all 
Nordic countries today. The Norwegian terrorist that murdered so many saw
marxism as a main enemy 
together with Islam embodied in the social democratic  youth of Norway. We
can say this is not coherent 
ideologically, but so was nazism neither. The point is that his political
vision includes also an economic 
dimension. 

The government of Norway and Attac excludes the economic aspects and calls
only for democracy, 
tolerance and humanism. The Prague Spring II network against right wing
extremism puts the attack 
also in the context of being against socialism and marxism as well as
claiming to defend Christian 
values. Now one can have different opinions about the specific wording, but
it is not an odd idea that 
the attack is not a general attack against democracy and tolerance but a
more specific attack also with a 
economical aspect directed against the workers movement, socialism and
marxism. From the point of 
view of the WSF declaration combining economy (as well as ecology) with
politics is at the core of the 
content. Attac is also an organization focusing on economy. So the position
of Attac Norway is 
somewhat puzzling. 

I can follow the discussion in Norway somewhat and also of course in
Sweden. The Norwegians better 
speak for themselves. But firstly the attack cannot be seen only as a
Norwegian phenomena, it is also an 
international, primarily European phenomena. Both due to the fact the right
wing extremism and 
populism is on the rise in many countries, but also due how the Utøya
terror attack is used in different 
contexts (as well as international, e.g. this mailing list). In Sweden
there is of course much sorrow, as 
many states, Norway is the country most like our own. Our prime minister
have recieved strong criticism 
for not expressing our sorrow strong enough. On the other hand he does not
express strong concern at 
other occasions either very much, as when an islamist made a suicide
terroist attack in the middle of 
Stockholm last year and by chance the bomb only killed himself. The general
message in Sweden is the 
same as Attac and government in Norway, democcracy, tolerance, humanism.

At first I fought this was an understandable way to focus on the most
important human aspects directly 
after the attack. It was also often stated that the political analysis must
come later. The general 
statements about protecting an open society, democracy and tolerance was
somewhat presented en 
passant, some general words to say until a real political discussion could
start later. Now it seems on 
both Attacs letter and the general debate that this after never comes. We
are stuck with the general 
remarks made at the moment but presented in a more concrete way. In Sweden
this means that 
extremism in general is the problem which Swedish state ideology for saying
that all political ideologies 
except the state sponsored liberalism are extremist and are the cause for
terrorism. A general shift in 
society towards understanding politics separate from economics means also
that acknowledging 
conflicts means to create conflict, and especially ideologies saying there
is an conflict are the cause of 
terrorism and violence in society. 

Sweden have gone so far that a spoecial governmental institution is set up
to disseminate ideas about 
how nazism and communist regimes causes crimes against humanity and
genocide. This official 
governmental information material to teachers claims that the root of
Soviet union terror and genocide 
stems from Marx as he commented upon the Paris commune that next time more
terror is needed. The 
fact that the massive terror was used against the communards and the Paris
Commune demands for 
democracy is excluded from this governmental propaganda. In general when
influential people in 
Sweden use such word as Attac Norway uses in the follow-up on the terror
attack on Utøya they make it 
specific – left wing and right wing extremism are equally bad, undemocratic
and intolerant, this time it 
happened to be a right wing extremist. It has even gone so far that
Birgitta Olsson, a progressive 
leading politician in the liberal party have compared the Gothenburg riots
at the EU-summit in 2001, 
claimed to be the result of left wing extremism with the terror against the
social democratic youth in 
Norway. Left and right are equally bad, only liberals are without guilt.
Thus at least in Sweden, when the 
Attac Norway kind of analysis is the reference, the actual outcome is main
stream liberalism which is 
becoming more and more repressive against all other ideological currents
claiming total hegemony. If 
this liberal position on rioght wing terrorism against the workers
movementsd is also the opinion 
carried by other Attac organizations in Europe in a time when also
according to experts right wing 
extremism is on the rise and next time it can be anywhere else ENA will not
become a very positive 
experience. 

Mestrum points at something very important. We are in ”dire need of
concrete alternatives which can 
bring hope and trust to peoples. We have our analysis and we know what is
wrong in this world. If we 
want to stop the desperate and dangerous running-off to the xenophobic
extreme right, we need an 
attractive and hopeful discourse which can convince broad groups of
people.” But then comes the 
problem ”In all circumstances, in all countries, people need protection.”

This is in my understanding not at all a concrete alternative linked to
some hope, this is a defensive 
measure of exactly the kind that brings the left backwards defending and
defending themselves instead 
of creating hope by starting to also have an agenda for a transition
towards another society built on 
social justice and ecological awareness. Of course the defensive struggle
is what we have to use most of 
our time to, but without the salt, the concrete alternatives that changes
power relations and production 
and consumtion in our society ideas of how to establish social protection
will be only illusions. For the 
time being lucky countries can create some possibilites for themselves but
in the long run can we only 
defend our rights and the planet we live on with struggle for another way
to organize production and 
consumption. Here maybe the peasant and environmental movement have
something to offer which the 
trade unions and the left seams to have forgotten sometimes. But maybe not
without excepting that 
those claiming that while struggling for social rights and environmental
concerns also claim that restore 
the welfare state is an illusion. Or that without opposing the liberal
ideology in the struggle against 
right wing and other repression the repression will grow worse – European
right wing terrrorism is not 
primarily the result of extremist ideologies but due to growing tensions in
society created by liberal 
economic politics. Or stopping capitalism by making all movements into
anticapitalist movements is an 
illusion. 

The left must come out of its polarizing struggle between reformists and
revolutionaries and try as the 
WSF declaration clearly states, treat critique of capitalism and
imperialism on equal terms as the 
relationship between human beings and nature. The environmental movement
needs alliance with 
movements primarily concerned with social justice and the distribution of
wealth. We already do work 
closely with peasant movements, it would be positive with an alliance for
both defence and concrete 
alternatives with other movements, built with open eyes for ideological
differencs but hopefully with a 
bopt less illusions. 

Yours

Tord Björk

Active in Friends of the Earth Sweden and Prague spring II network



----------------------------------

Dear Matyas,
 
Thank you very much for sending this interesting film. It certainly will be
a good introduction to the 
debates you will be having in Freiburg.
 
However, I do have some questions and doubts, mainly on the interpretation
that has to be given to this 
film and to your e-mail of 10 April 2011. You then said you were not going
to participate in the ENA 
because too many people were defending ‘the welfare state’, ‘labour
aristocracy’ and trade unions. You 
want to defend radical anticapitalist policies.
Do I understand correctly that you assimilate welfare states and trade
unions with the capitalist system? 
Do I understand correctly that you assimilate antipoverty policies with
anticapitalism?
 
Since I have a long career in researching social policies, mainly at the
international level, these 
questions are for me really important and worrying.
 
You might know that without our welfare states, poverty would be, on
average, one third higher in 
Western Europe.
You might also know that it is precisely neoliberals, with the World Bank
in the very first place, but now 
followed by the European Un ion, who want to promote antipoverty policies,
not in order to help the 
poor, but in order to weaken trade unions and dismantle welfare states.
Antipoverty policies are the 
‘social agenda’ of the Bretton Woods institutions, the G8 and the European
Union. Should I also stress 
that this ‘fighting poverty with the poor’ is precisely what the World Bank
is promoting? As if the poor 
were able, without help from outside, without jobs and allowances, to
create income for themselves.
 
Of course many criticisms are possible on trade unions and their way to
accommodate with 
governments,  but it is quite another thing to discredit trade unions. We
badly need them and will need 
them in the future! How do you think we can fight poverty, is poverty is
constantly and massively 
created by the dismantlement of the welfare states?
 
If I understand correctly and you are opposing antipoverty to welfare
states – poor jobless people or 
working poor to non poor workers – I think you are making a very sad
mistake that might have severe 
consequences. It is precisely what I was writing in my article which I sent
you and which I am sending 
again . The opposition in our societies is not between the poor and
workers, but between the poor and 
the rich, it is about a class conflict not an opposition between groups of
people who both need 
protection.
 
Anticapitalism is one thing, anti-welfare state is quite another. Whatever
system you want to promote in 
Europe, capitalism, postcapitalism, socialism, communism, you will always
need social protection for 
people, way beyond antipoverty policies. You will need social insurances
and you will need 
employment. Look at what happened in Northern Africa, where there is very
little poverty b ut huge 
social problems 

 
Dear Matyas, I do hope you will want to reflect on these questions. The
left is today in a very weak 
position. We need to join forces, not to divide.
 
I am sorry I had to come back to these points, but you will understand they
are for me very crucial.
 
All the best in Freiburg,
 
Francine

----------------------------------


Letter to the civil society organizations (CSOs) of
Eastern Europe involved in the European Social Forum
  
       

Budapest, 10th April, 2011.
 

Dear Friends, 

You may know that the Assembly of Social
Movements of the World Social Forum held  in 
Dakar in February 2011, adopted a document on turning to anti-capitalist
direction. The text of this 
document is attached.
 
According to the 23 CSOs cooperating in the Hungarian Social Forum Network
20 years of experience in 
Eastern Europe also show that the capitalist restoration has brought great
misery, insecurity and lack of 
perspectives. The global economic crisis does not solve the structural
tensions of global capitalism, the 
neo-liberal transfer of income to the side of capital as well as the
privatization of public services 
continues, the  austerity measures are significantly reducing the living
standards of the workers, to 
restore the welfare state is an illusion.

According to our
opinion the European Social Forum has also 
become weaker in recent years, because it failed to adapt itself to the
changing situations, it was not 
radical enough for the assessment of the situation and finding a way out.
Today, in some cases, even 
the European trade unions stand up more strongly than the ESF. Today Latin
America shows us the way, 
as it was mentioned in the document of the WSF Assembly. In  our opinion if
the European Social Forum 
does not realize  this development, the history "will pass by".


We suggest to the European civilians and 
the civil society organizations in the Eastern European countries agreeing
with the document of the 
World Social Forum Assembly of Social Movements to join the Global
Anticapitalist Day. Let us organise 
anti-capitalist events and  demonstrations on 12th October 2011!


Friendly regards, 

Hungarian Social 
Forum Network 

----------------------------------


Dear Friends,


I really appreciate your reaction and am pleased to answer your questions
and doubts.

Firstly, in our letter dated of 10th April 2011 we wrote:"The member
organizations of the Hungarian 
Social Forum Network will continue to take part in the activities of the
European Social Forum and a 
group organized on a voluntary basis will participate in the European
Network Academy in Freiburg."  
So finally on voluntary basis, I decided to go to Freiburg and participate
in several workshops, including 
poverty, right-wing extremism, austerity and debt. I took this decision
because I like to keep my 
promises towards people, like e.g.Hermann Dworczak (ASF), Jutta Sundermann
(Attac Germany), or 
Elisebeth Gauthier, etc.

However, the majority of the indiviudals, the groups, the member
organizations of the Hungarian Social 
Forum Network did not change its standpoint regarding welfare state, the
role of the trade unions, so 
we still think that our position is still valid, namely:

"History has shown over the last 30 years that the achievements of the
welfare state ultimately can not 
be continued after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the state socialism
in general. Superiority to the 
benefit of capital  evolved to such an extent that in Europe and almost
everywhere outside of Europe it 
behaves like a despot with the assistance of the state powers. Those who
engage in politics only in the 
defence of the welfare achievments  as the European Left Party in Brussels
does, keep the international 
left and the remains of the labor movement, and new initiatives in deadend.
Indeed, in the neo-liberal 
economic order, capitalism has exhausted its positive possibilities.  Those
who only protect the welfare 
achievements and neglect the world outside Europe, and fail to see that
within capitalism there are no 
positive responses any longer to the structural crisis of capitalism,
wittingly or unwittingly become the 
ally of capital against the world’s poor and opressed  despite the
obviously  approaching disaster. Of 
course, we protect the welfare achievements as well, but we always stress
also that the real global 
solution of the problems is impossible within the system. Unfortunately,
the domestic and the European 
trade union movement leaders are not aware of the developments. They have
entered into negotiations 
with the right-wing conservative Viktor Orban, who  intends to introduce an
authoritarian  system in 
Hungary, while virtually no results have been achieved despite  an
enthusiastic, well organized 
demonstration with 50 thousand participants. We try to draw lessons from
this situation - at least 
according to our conscience."  I wish to add also that the situation here
in the CEE countries are 
completely different from the ones in the West. In this region we have
never had welfare state in the 
Western European sense and after the collapse of the Berlin wall we had
only drastic degradation of our 
social system (our special Eastern European "welfare"). We do believe that
the Western welfare state 
cannot be maintained for the long run either, its dismantling has already
been started. However, we do 
think that we have to join all anti-neoliberal forces in defending the
social rights. This is of vital 
necessity for the short term, but the final solution to the problems is 
possible only beyond capitalism.

Welfare state and trade unions are both the "product" of capitalism. The
welfare state in the West could 
not have been established without the existence of the socialist countries,
the sharp race between the 
two systems (socialism and capitalism). At the same time I do not belittle
or deny the role of the trade 
unions, which are the "product" of the long and painful workers' struggles
(labour movement), too. I 
think we need the trade unions  despite their weakness and their way to
accomodate with governments.

At ENA I wish to show and prove to the participants, that poverty cannot be
eradicated inside capitalism 
(because it is an immanent part of the capitalist system) , but we have to
do our best to minimize its 
extent, we have to try to build up community production, self-management,
self-defence using the 
existing possibilities (abundant labour force, unused land, micro-credits,
etc.). We have some good 
experineces here in Hungary how to survive under capitalist circumstances.
These good examples are to 
be popularized, knowing that these are not numerous yet and not harming in
any way Capitalism.

I wish to emphasize at ENA that antipoverty policies of the IFIs and the EU
are not solutions to the 
problems at all.
For me it is clear that the dividing line in our societies is between
labour and capital, or as you put it 
"between the poor and the rich, it is about a class conflict".
It is a class struggle, which still goes on.

Dear Francine, please do not misunderstand me, I am on the side of the
workers, the jobless (briefly: the 
expoited). Social protection is on top of our priorities, we consider the
day to day struggle for the 
people on the side of the labour as very important. Many of us in the left
in Hungary are making 
enourmous efforts to join all anti-systemic forces, not to divide them.

Hoping I could make my standpoints much clearer. If doubts still remained,
please advise me.

Best comradely,

Matyas

unqute

I wish to make it clear that we want to defend the welfare achievements
because there is no other choce 
until the anticapitalist forces are so weak, but this is not an end in
itself, and not a unique demand. All 
must be taken from the capital what is possible for the workers.

If you wish to discuss about this in more details, please feel free to join
our workshop in Freiburg, 
because I do not think that such a debate on the mailinglists are
productive.

Best regards,

Matyas Benyik

----------------------------------


 Dear Matyas,
 
Thanks a lot for this very useful clarification. My concern originated in
the rather unhappy wording of 
your April message. I trust that in the debates in Freiburg, equal
attention will be paid to fighting 
poverty as to social security, and more generally to social protection
(including public services and 
labour rights). As you may have seen in my article, I made a concrete
proposal to broaden the concept 
of social protection.
 
Of course, this is only one proposal and you very well may disagree. That
is not the point. The important 
thing however is, I think, to leave Freiburg with a positive message and a
forward-looking concrete 
proposal. I am sure that we will agree on one thing: we live in a very deep
crisis, the left is in dire need 
of concrete alternatives which can bring hope and trust to peoples. We have
our analysis and we know 
what is wrong in this world. If we want to stop the desperate and dangerous
running-off to the 
xenophobic extreme right, we need an attractive and hopeful discourse which
can convince broad 
groups of people. In all circumstances, in all countries, people need
protection. The left should be able 
to offer this and should look for broad alliances in order to achieve it.
In my view, trade unions are a 
crucial part of it.
 
Dear Matyas, I trust you will have a constructive discussion in Freiburg. I
wish you all the best.
 
Francine    
----------------------------------


Dear Matyas, 
 
We are grateful for all solidarity greetings. We do however not share the
analysis of the situation in the 
solidarity letter, the facts should be investigated closely before
conclusions are made.
 
The reaction from the Norwegian Government has been that the proper
response to these killings 
should be increased democracy, increased tolerance and increased humanity.
This reaction has full 
support from Attac Norway.
 
The population has responded very positively to the government policy,
including also positive response 
from major representatives of the capitalists. Opinion polls shows that 95%
of the population is "very 
satisfied" with the government reaction.