Anti-globalization social movements have played a role in informing the world and possibly even affecting global policy. One of the most famous examples of an anti-globalization social movement is the World Social Forum (WSF) (also known as the Porto Elegre Forum), launched at the Alternative Social Summit in Geneva, 2000. The first annual meeting of the WSF was held in 2001, at Porto Elegre, Brazil. Since then, the forum has changed dramatically in size, organization and format, and has become a large forum spread over several countries, focusing on representing countries of low economic development, often referred to as 'south' countries.



Firstly, for the purposes of this report, the term 'anti-globalization' must be altered. This term is now considered to be a term of propaganda, used to slander the very organizations that it describes. In this day and age, most organizations opposed to neoliberalism consider themselves to be 'alter-globalization', as it is generally accepted that globalization can be a positive thing if accompanied by proper controls and boundaries. The irony of the term is that without globalization it would be impossible for a large, international organization such as the WSF to exist.

In an interview by Sniježana Matejčić (June 2005), Noam Chomsky is reported to have said the following:

The dominant propaganda systems have appropriated the term "globalization" to refer to the specific version of international economic integration that they favor, which privileges the rights of investors and lenders, those of people being incidental. In accord with this usage, those who favor a different form of international integration, which privileges the rights of human beings, become "anti-globalist." This is simply vulgar propaganda, like the term "anti-Soviet" used by the most disgusting commissars to refer to dissidents. It is not only vulgar, but idiotic. Take the World Social Forum, called "anti-globalization" in the propaganda system -- which happens to include the media, the educated classes, etc., with rare exceptions. The WSF is a paradigm example of globalization. It is a gathering of huge numbers of people from all over the world, from just about every corner of life one can think of, apart from the extremely narrow highly privileged elites who meet at the competing World Economic Forum, and are called "pro-globalization" by the propaganda system. An observer watching this farce from Mars would collapse in hysterical laughter at the antics of the educated classes.



According to The Forum Social Mundial (2002), the nature of the WSF is to be an open forum for the discussion of ideas opposed to neoliberal globalization in the global economy, and to build alternatives supporting human development. Essentially, the forum is a place for different organizations to meet and communicate their ideas with other organizations who may or may not be like-minded, but share a common goal: opposing corporate globalization. No one person or organization can claim to speak on behalf of the WSF, and the WSF itself will not take direct action. Rather it enables free communication of information, research and ideas, hopefully putting forward proposals which may result in action taken by member organizations in alliance with, or on behalf of, each other. Therefore, in it's essence as a forum and nothing more, the WSF doesn't have any specific goals. However, one could assume that a goal of such an organization would be to grow in size and diversity, and to increase the reach and spectrum of the shared ideas (i.e through global media present at the meeting).



Regarding the rationale and effectiveness of the WSF, it is extremely difficult to measure the exchange of ideas, or discover exactly what the result of such an exchange is. Although there are organizations and websites such as http://ips.org which claim to report on issues reflecting the goals of the WSF as well as the forums results, it is impossible to attribute any results to the WSF itself, especially considering that it is against the forums charter for any person or group to speak or act on behalf of the entire forum. There are, however, other ways that we can examine the achievements of the forum.

First of all, consider the attendance rate. According to Geoffery Pleyers, the number of participating attendees at the WSF grew from 15,000 to 170,000 from 2001 to 2005 (open democracy, June 2009). This means that in just four years, the forum had grown to more than eleven times it's original attendance. This would be considered by many to be a positive result for the forum, as it increases both the input of ideas, and the amount of people that are receiving the shared information. The same article, however, also presents the point that as the forum grows, it becomes more divided, and increasingly the only thing that can be agreed upon is what the forum opposes, as opposed to what it actually supports. This seriously affects the forums ability to put forward proposals, but it does not actually halt the sharing of ideas. In fact, as mentioned above, this situation provides an opportunity for attendees to hear opinions of diverse groups with different backgrounds.

Secondly, consider the spectrum of different nations and groups being reached by the forum. In 2001 and following years, the forum was held in Porto Elegre, but in 2004, in a break in tradition, it was held in Mumbai, India. In 2006, a polycentric forum was held in Venezuela, Mali and Pakistan. The 2007 forum was held in Kenya. The 2008 forum took on a special format; it was called the Global Call for Action, and was held simultaneously all around the world by thousands of local organizations around January 26. In 2010, the 10th anniversary year of the WSF, the forum has been split into a series of events and workshops that span both the year and the globe. While the irony of the situation is that the so-called 'anti-globalization' social movement has itself globalized over the last 10 years, it cannot be doubted that the effectiveness of such an organization increases as it increases its scope (this, of course, is why most activists refer to the WSF as an 'alter-globalization' movement).

Esther Vivas, in an article for International Viewpoint online magazine, claims that the WSF has this year achieved it's goals, by attracting more attendees, decentralizing the event, attracting the active participation of other social movements, and by achieving the first example of a “collective response to the systemic crisis of capitalism” at an event in Belem. The article also goes on to praise the movement on their ability to adapt to the changing world and its political and economic climate, particularly with regard to the American 'War on Terrorism', as well as the rapidly changing political climate in many South American countries (World Social Forum: Ten Years On, January 1010).



The World Social Forum, in its ten years of life, has rapidly grown in size and recognition. Today it is considered to be a very well known and respected example of an 'alter-globalization' social movement. It has successfully provided an open platform for communication regarding the movement against neoliberalism. The only real criticism of the WSF by other members of the 'alter-globalization' movement was regarding the 2007 forum in Nairobi, Kenya, which was dominated by non-government organizations (NGOs) attempting to speak on behalf of the african poor, rather than spokespeople of the poor themselves, or 'grassroots' organizations (Manji, 2007). While the results of the organization's existence cannot truly be measured (taking into account that the organization itself cannot take direct action), it can be considered that all in all it has been a success.



REFERENCES:

• The Charter of Principles (2002). Retrieved from http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2

• Chomsky, N. (June 2005). Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-globalization_movement

• http://ips.org

• Pleyers, G. (June 2009). World Social Forum 2009: A Generation's Challenge. Open Democracy. Retrieved from http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/world-social-forum-2009-a-generation-s-challenge

• Manji, F. (January 2007). World Social Forum: Just Another NGO Fair? Pambazuka News. Retrieved from http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/39464

• Vivas, E. (January 2010). World Social Forum, Ten Years On. International Viewpoint. Retrieved from http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1813

•