The Look of the Periphery
I spent my entire time down in Bloomsbury. ESF events were scattered between Britannia Street by Kings Cross (four or five rooms, I think); Friends' Meeting House opposite Euston (I think just the big hall got used); University of London Union (ULU, a few minutes walk from Friends' House); Birkbeck College (on the same block as ULU); and SOAS (the School of Oriental and African Studies, round the corner from Birkbeck). In ULU we had around nine rooms and a hall, in Birkbeck something similar - with a screening room rather than a hall, I think. I don't know about SOAS.
There were also related/parallel events at Conway Hall, another ten minutes of so from SOAS (registration was in Conway Hall on Thursday, much to the surprise and dismay of the Conway Hall staff, as no permission had been given for such a major gathering - a letter in today's paper says that 'senior GLA staff' seem to be implicated in this potentially hazardous crowding); and at the LSE, another five or so minutes walk south of Conway Hall.
So, a lot of walking, potentially. I'd say that the 'Bloomsbury' zone was a distant, peripheral mini-ESF, and rather low-key for it. There are other gatherings/conferences that happen in the same area at different times of the year - next month is the Anarchist Bookfair, for example - when a building like ULU will be packed out and heaving with excitement of some kind (if only the excitement of surviving the corridors).
The fragmentation of the periphery added insult to injury. Most of the people using each building were not involved in the ESF, and this diluted the atmosphere enormously. We were peripheral to the building, let alone of Alexandra Palace.
Out on the streets, there were political stalls. I only saw SWP stalls, in Britannia Street, outside ULU, inside Friends Meeting House, and between ULU and Birkbeck. There were also paper sellers and leafleters. The most visible paper was Socialist Worker, produced on a daily basis during ESF (there was a daily paper on site at the WSF in Mumbai). There were also posters on the walls. To be honest, I didn't really take much notice of these, but my impression was that they projected a 'militant/revolutionary socialist' feel. They were far from ubiquitous, though; they were marginal also, in the streets of London.
For the passer-by and the uncommitted newcomer to ESF, I suspect that the main visual impression of ESF would be one of revolutionary socialist parties. Which is unfortunate, since the WSF Charter of Principles says that 'Neither party representations nor military organisations shall participate in the Forum.' (Principle 9, revised version, 10 June 2001).
Did the ESF in Central London seem a joyful, powerful experience of the plenitude of the world anti-capitalist, anti-corporate-globalization movement? I don't think so.
Did it feel like the drawing together of strands of struggle, deliberating together? Maybe. I would guess that for most of us mainly it felt like a snippet of the ESF/WSF experience.
Milan Rai
Hastings
There were also related/parallel events at Conway Hall, another ten minutes of so from SOAS (registration was in Conway Hall on Thursday, much to the surprise and dismay of the Conway Hall staff, as no permission had been given for such a major gathering - a letter in today's paper says that 'senior GLA staff' seem to be implicated in this potentially hazardous crowding); and at the LSE, another five or so minutes walk south of Conway Hall.
So, a lot of walking, potentially. I'd say that the 'Bloomsbury' zone was a distant, peripheral mini-ESF, and rather low-key for it. There are other gatherings/conferences that happen in the same area at different times of the year - next month is the Anarchist Bookfair, for example - when a building like ULU will be packed out and heaving with excitement of some kind (if only the excitement of surviving the corridors).
The fragmentation of the periphery added insult to injury. Most of the people using each building were not involved in the ESF, and this diluted the atmosphere enormously. We were peripheral to the building, let alone of Alexandra Palace.
Out on the streets, there were political stalls. I only saw SWP stalls, in Britannia Street, outside ULU, inside Friends Meeting House, and between ULU and Birkbeck. There were also paper sellers and leafleters. The most visible paper was Socialist Worker, produced on a daily basis during ESF (there was a daily paper on site at the WSF in Mumbai). There were also posters on the walls. To be honest, I didn't really take much notice of these, but my impression was that they projected a 'militant/revolutionary socialist' feel. They were far from ubiquitous, though; they were marginal also, in the streets of London.
For the passer-by and the uncommitted newcomer to ESF, I suspect that the main visual impression of ESF would be one of revolutionary socialist parties. Which is unfortunate, since the WSF Charter of Principles says that 'Neither party representations nor military organisations shall participate in the Forum.' (Principle 9, revised version, 10 June 2001).
Did the ESF in Central London seem a joyful, powerful experience of the plenitude of the world anti-capitalist, anti-corporate-globalization movement? I don't think so.
Did it feel like the drawing together of strands of struggle, deliberating together? Maybe. I would guess that for most of us mainly it felt like a snippet of the ESF/WSF experience.
Milan Rai
Hastings
posted by Milan Rai at 10:33 PM
<< Home