User login

Этот вопрос задается для проверки того, не является ли обратная сторона программой-роботом (для предотвращения попыток автоматической регистрации).





You are here

Analysis of the meeting


of the meeting in the 3rd
of November 2007 of alterglobalist, civil and social movements and
tendencies of the CIS countries


present time Russian internet is discussing of the meeting. We
present your enlightened attention several opinions of the


Markelov, president of the Institute of Superioroty of Law.

1. The
meeting was held in atmosphere of creative chaos: everything and all
was taking place by itself, without over-organization. Flexible forms
of self-organization are very important.

2. All,
who wanted, took chair to speak

3. There
was plenty of new people (from Kalmykii, Minska, Uliyanovska, Kazani
and other regions), which enjoyed and liked the Meeting.

4. Unfortunately
due to financial reasons, not all the C.I.S. states and distant
regions of Russia were represented.

5. Catering
was properly organized.

6. Due
to different length of miscellaneous seminars some participants “hung
in pause”.

7. It
is desirable to enrich the spectrum of positions at such meetings.

8. It
is essential not to lose the orientation on diminishing of
inter-group conflicts so that these meetings do not transform into
platforms of clarification of old painful relations between separate
persons and group, but to transform them to constructive logic, while
preserving the atmosphere of discussions of such meetings


Mitina, Second
secretary of the Central Committee of the Russian Young Communist
League (RKSM).

1. It
is regretful that the meeting was not properly covered by mass-media.

2. It
is necessary to make arrangements with exact known journalists (only
2 journalists were present) before, rather then simply send
information to agencies.

3. This
public information fault is practically unique. Alost all the rest
was a success. The Action was prepared in extremely compressed
periods, less than a month (first Organizational Committee
(Orgkomitet) — an October 8, The meeting on November 3). The
Improvisations sometimes do better, than carefully prepared actions.

4. It
is advisable to record all plenary and section seminars (due to
multiple requests by those who failed to come to Moscow but want to
read the materials in Internet).

5. By
the following Forum it is desirable to carry out some work with large
partners, that either did not participate at all, or level of their
participation was insignificant (VKT trade-union, IKD institute,
Teachers’ trade unions, left non-parliamentary parties, including
unregistered or deregistered).

6. It
is necessary
to define the level and degree of our participation in preparation of
SOCFORUM-2008 Social Forum considering that it would be held on
Ukrainian territory. We should send our delegates and representatives
to meetings of the Ukrainian Organizational Forum.

7. The
database on participants and organizations (based on questionnaires,
filled by participants at registrations), should be created and
constantly renewed.

8. We
should adjust distribution of materials (quite a lot of people do not
receive them).



Ozhogina, “Alternatives” and Mihail Kropotkin, leader of a
public enterprise.

1. The
meeting was held at the working and what it is important — comradely,
brotherly friendly atmosphere.

2. Selection
of people for such meetings is not at the proper level. Amongst the
participants must be less occasional people but rather those
concerned with the real deal. So it is necessary for participants to
fill questionnaires about its personal activity before their arrival.
But this should not at all mean closeness of the meetings, but rather
the principle of increasing of their efficiency.

3. We
need a principle: not to criticize other organizations from formal

4. At
meetings everyone must be greatly and constructively being

5. At
plenary meeting (the opening) the audience was drowned because of
intergroup contacts, the audience did not actively participate. It is
necessary to speakers at “open mike” to “keep”
the audience.



1. I
think that it was sound! And this not accidentally since it was
reached by high quality of the alterglobalists meeting: profound,
interesting, discussionable and herewith comradely, on-friendly,
rather then hostile.

2. At
the meeting there were no “slots”, in which, as a rule
something small-minded-spiteful live.

3. I
liked architecture of the meeting: each of the organizers as in jazz
orchestra felt the logic of the Integer and was initiative, trying to
backstop each other. There was no fighting for egoistic interests.

4. I
Liked that, for instance, the round table on questions of the
culture and politics was conducted together by Vlad Tupikin and me.
There was no a dictatorship of monistic approach and, besides, Vlad
simply helped me in conducting at the most complex moments. He
undertook the most difficult part of conduct.

5. I
agree with critiques by Larisa Ozhogina that it is necessary to
invite real working activists from regions. I offer to implement the
principle of the labor participation in alterglobalists meetings: he,
who works, arrives. To allow the principle of political
representation of organizations is not acceptable. A one, even if he
represents an organization nevertheless should previously describe
what he personally does on ground. This will prevent at least at
some measure penetration careerist and egoist motives in
alterglobalist background.

6. We
must introduce the principle of financial transparency in
organizations of similar meetings, as it was for the first time
implemented at this meeting.

7. Sales
of any goods at such meetings must be done only with permission of
the Organizational Committee of the Forum, since the Forum is
responsible. But attempts to use the meeting as platform for their
business (I mean not the left papers, of course) were undertaken
during the meeting, in particular by one young person, who refused to
introduce gimself.

8. I
enjoyed very much that the speeches at plenary meeting were on
background of jazz music. This is stylish!




1. The
meeting showed high efficiency of the given formats: small resources,
small facility, very short period and enormous effect.

2. The
leaders of the plenary meetings were almost perfect.

3. Effect
of size. Probably about 200 people are the most effective number of

now know empirically that it this form -
Working Meeting of Activists and their counsels turned out to be very
productive. And we can proudly call it a “Mini-Forum”.
Excellent form!

4. Sound
organization of sections under given space and time, which we had in
the restaurant and which we used on 110 %. But number of sections was
too little not enough. Sure November in Moscow is exact time for
outdoors sections.

5. I
am sure, that consider the given form — Working Meeting of Activists
we simply do not need to spend our efforts for PR activity with
mass-media. We are not “political technologists” We should keep
our PR resources for bigger and more open meetings.



Buzgalin, coordinator of the motion “Alternatives”.

1. What
is principally important, is that while preparing the meeting all
work of the activists was free and not paid or compensated in any
form. There was no spirit of business or bureaucracy.

2. After
such meetings we should conduct “analysis of the flight”
with analysis of our faults and strong points, not only by
Organizational Committee, but also by all activists. Here, every
vision of each is important.

3. We
should make a smart and intelligent report about this meeting for
sending out, as well as for Internet sites. The transparency of
information is important.

4. For
the future it
is necessary to organize the well-timed sending out of the materials
on preparing of the forum, as well as open for all Internet site.


interested person can join this “analysis of the flight”.
You cab send your own proposals and offers on e-mail:


Vote up!
Vote down!

Points: 0

You voted ‘up’