ABSTRACT
The WSF was established as a forum that gathered movements opposing a certain political ideology, neoliberalism, but it has refrained from openly supporting a political ideology. The WSF has empowered more radical leftish movements and thus played a role in the separation of these movements from more conventional left-wing parties that have embraced neoliberal capitalism as an undefeatable reality. Right-wing politicians have capitalized on this separation by promoting a populist rejection of capitalist elites. WSF itself has profiled itself as a forum of social movements rather than a forum of socialist movements. The article analyses to what extent the hegemonic role of NGOs in the WSF is at the roots of this apolitical positioning and to what extend rightsholder movements might have benefited from a more explicit embracement of a coherent socialist political alternative rather than the diversity that WSF has fostered as one of its central principles.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
4 See also for example, http://www.alterinter.org/spip.php?article4654.
7 Examples of national regulation include the Great Firewall in the People’s Republic of China.
8 See also http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/ETCGroupBriefing_Case4TA%40Rio_170312_0.pdf.
10 See also for example, https://www.cartamaior.com.br/?/Editoria/Eleicoes/Sua-tia-nao-e-fascista-ela-esta-sendo-manipulada-/60/41968.
11 Please note there are important exceptions here, especially the foundations established by political parties, and some of the organizations they support, are in a position to foster a clear political profile.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Simone Lovera-Bilderbeek
Dr Simone Lovera-Bilderbeek is a researcher. She also works as director of the Global Forest Coalition, a coalition of 97 Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations and NGOs from 32 countries striving for rights-based, socially just forest policies. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of GFC or its members.