💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › cd-everything-i-expected.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:29:32. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Everything I expected
Author: CD
Date: 29th March 1998
Language: en
Topics: a reply, Zapatistas
Source: Retrieved on 4th August 2020 from http://struggle.ws/mexico/comment/balaclava_rep_cd.html

CD

Everything I expected

Compáneros/as,

Well I’ve finally read “Behind the Balaclavas” and it was everything I

expected: which is to say predictable, formulaic and short on empirical

observations. But as broken clock is right twice a day, it also makes a

couple points that should be taken seriously by Zapatista solidarity

folks. I think there is an uncritical attitude among many of us about

the actual shortcomings of the Zapatistas. More seriously I think there

is some self-censorship that folks engage in because they don’t want to

weaken the Zapatistas by putting out anything negative about them.

“Behind the Balaclavas” probably won’t do anything to reduce that

tendency since it is quite clearly NOT what could be called constructive

criticism. The problem is that by failing to acknowledge the real

problems with the Zapatistas we undermine our own ability to learn from

them and to understand their positive innovations in context.

A few weeks ago a Zapatista responsable in the community of Roberto

Barrios was macheted to death. He was a personal friend of many people

here and I’m a little reluctant to accept the description of him as a

bureaucrat by people living in the relative comfort of the Parisian

autonomoist scene. None the less I feel compelled to at least sketch out

my problems with “behind the Balaclavas” if only because other people

might take it more seriously than it deserves to be taken.

I’m convinced that any serious social struggle against capital that is

geographically limited in the ways that all such struggles have been,

will of necessity reproduce to one degree or another capitalist

relations within it. The exigencies of the world market, inherent

inequalities (of knowledge, charisma, judgement...) within

organizations, and the need to ultimately negotiate with the

representatives of capital once you’ve played your best cards all

contribute to these processes. The detection of such a process in the

EZLN is therefore not very interesting to me. Deneuve and Reeve’s

criticism all seems directed at the fact that “People make themselves

the advocates of realism — they give into the essential and side with

new oppressive projects.” Thats just too tidy. Reality makes people

advocates of realism. The indigenous communities of the North, Los Altos

and the Selva in Chiapas are facing the threat of extermination and

can’t wait for some genius to discover the perfect way out that doesn’t

reproduce in one way or another capitalist relations. To describe this

sort of practical compromise in order to survive as “siding with new

oppressive projects” is puerile.

Deneuve and Reeve’s description of the “totalitarian character” of

indigenous societies flattens out enormous differences: between Mayans

and Aztecs, between the pre-conquest, colonial, post-independance and

post-revolutionary periods, as well as the considerable differences that

exist between the different contemporary Mayan communities here in

Chiapas, including among different Zapatista communities. They seem to

disregard differences in degree of stratification between post and

pre-conquest communities as well as the enormous changes that

accompanied the colonization of the Selva over the past 40 or so years

in which the old cargo system was largely left behind.

One gets the impression that Deneuve and Reeve read a handfull of books

on the EZLN and Mexican history so that they could plug the Zapatistas

into their one-size-fits-all critique of any organization in the world.

The glib write-off of Zapata as “a response to the aspirations of a

communal Indian past” again flattens out a considerably more complex

situation and sides with the most reactionary historical

interpretations. The original Zapatistas were, like the EZLN today, the

product of multiple influences — some decidedly anti-capitalist and

others holding onto pre-capitalist traditions, and still others

significantly compromised by capitalist ideology. They stand in my mind

still as one of the most significant revolts against capitalist rule in

human history.

D&R also seem to misunderstand both the general character of the ejido

sytem and the variation in land-use practices among the indigenous

communities. Ejidos exist both as legal entities recognized by the

Mexican state and as the actual communities whose practices may or may

not conform with the legal norms. Ejidal lands are generally worked

individually but owned communally. Some Ejidos, particularly in the

North, are, as I understand it completely integrated into capitalist

relations and function as virtual corporations. In Chiapas this is less

the case. And in some communities, mainly the smaller and most remote

ones, most or all of the land is worked as well as owned communally. In

fact, since many of these communities have not had their land titles

recognized, they are not “legally” Ejidos. The place of private property

in these communities is again highly variant. A friend of mine described

seeing half a dozen people wearing the same t-shirt over the course of

as many days in one community. (Do D&R share their clothing with their

neighbors?) The Ejido system was a concession wrested by the campesinos

from the state in the course of the Mexican Revolution. It has

undoubtedly been compromised in many ways and in D&R’s terminology that

seems to make it part of the “new oppressive project.” The real heart of

D&R’s critique of the EZLN is their supposed roots in Maoism. Their

shoddy account of the origins of the EZLN can only find an audience

because the supporters of the EZLN have been so reluctant to repeat the

story we all know is probably true about their origins. The EZLN was

founded by a tiny Guevarist (not Maoist) armed organization call the

Forces of National Liberatin (FLN) in 1983. They were able to recruit a

layer of veteran indigenous organizers who had undoubtedly been steeped

in both the Maoism of Linea Proletaria and the liberation theology of

Dominican catechists. From this base they were able to build mass

support in many indigenous communities to the degree that they were

willing to vote for war in popular assemblies in 1992.

D&R have nothing but contempt for the assemblies in Zapatista

communities and view it all as a front for Maoist politicians pulling

the strings from behind. This crude caricature however is mirrored by

the glowing representation of the assemblies as ideal democratic

decision-making bodies. The truth is undoubtedly somewhere in between.

The indigenous communities of Chiapas have traditions of making decisons

in assemblies that long preceded the arrival of any Maoists. But those

assemblies were assemblies of older male members of the communities. The

EZLN insited in 1992 that there also be assemblies of women and youth so

that the whole community could participate in making these decisions. We

can look on this as a cynical move as the women and youth represented

the strength of the EZLN in many communities, but the effect was to

broaden participatory democracy in the communities.

The problem with D&R’s critique of the EZs use of popular assemblies is

that it presumes that there is such a thing as a non-manipulated

assembly that is being corrupted. Like any decision-making process or

structure assemblies are called and organized because people have

agendas: they want the support of the community/factory/school/etc.. for

something. Who gets invited (based on who is defined as trustworthy),

where and when it happens, and the range of questions that are actually

open to discussion — these are all political decisions. Every single

example of popular assemblies that we might invoke from New England Town

Meetings to the Soviets to the Zapatista communities came into existence

because of the initiative and leadership of particular groups and

individuals in those contexts.

The assertions D&R make about the EZs bureaucratic control of discussion

are uninformed. Yes Marcos is the primary spokesperson for the EZ, but

he has not been the only one. Other members of the commandancia have

written and spoken publicly on many occasions. There is also already an

extensive literature in Spanish in which one can find the thinking of

many members of the Zapatistas communities who are not part of their

military hierarchy. Does Marcos’ prominence indicate the existence of a

contradiction within the Zapatistas? Of course it does, but it is a

contradiction that is not so easily resolved as D&R seem to think. The

communities turned to the Zapatistas because they were facing a mounting

campaign of repression in the late 80s that made the need for a military

capacity clear to many of them. It seems dubious that they could have

constructed one on their own without the (admittedly limited) expertise

of the folks in the Zapatistas who had already spent years on precisely

that project. What is astounding about the Zapatista is that they made

the transition from being a project of the FLN to being a genuinely

popular army under the civilian control of the CCRI. I know that the

CCRI is not the perfectly democratic body that it is sometimes portrayed

as, but what I think is important here is that an advance was made on

the practice of earlier guerrilla movements and that the commitment to

developing genuine democratic accountability to the people is sincere.

D&R attack both the Zapatista’s invocation of the symbols of Mexican

nationalism and indigenous identity. Frankly this doesn’t bother me much

at all. Like many nationalisms in imperialized countries, Mexican

nationalism is two-sided: it is both anti-imperialist and national

capitalist. The Zapatistas have consistently fought for a redefinition

of Mexican identity as pluri-ethnic (as opposed to simply mestizo) and

opposed its repressive functioning. They are right to attack the PRI for

selling Mexico’s sovereignty to US capital and if that involves invoking

national identity it is because that national identity has been a site

of resistance to capital.

D&R also attack the EZLN’s prohibitions of alcoholism and prostitution

by asking “since when can we get rid of alcoholism or prostitution by

forbidding them?” I don’t think the Zapatistas has gotten rid of either

of these evils but to imagine that their prohibition functions in the

same way as similar prohibitions by nation-states like the US is to lose

sight of the relative cohesion of the indigenous communities and to

project our own atomized existences onto them. The primary enforcement

mechanism in these communities is social disapproval. Drunks get tossed

in the community jails as well. But in a context in which alcohol has

been deliberately used to disrupt the functioning and capacity of

resistance of indigenous communities I uphold the right of those

communities to establish those kinds of sanctions as part of a larger

strategy of resistance.

What seems to bother D&R the most is that the EZLN do not identify the

struggle of the indigenous communities primarily or exclusively in terms

of the prcesses of proletarianization that are taking place here and

that are significantly driving those struggles. This point of view

completely denies the importance of the cultural survival of the

indigenous peoples as both legitimate in its own right and as a crucial

source of the cohesion of the struggle. They even suggest that the EZLN

is a “brake on the development of the autonomous capacity for struggle”

imagining that the “sub-proletarian youth” who make up the EZLNs base

would otherwise be developing that capacity if only the Zapatistas

weren’t in the way. This is absurd. Far more likey is that the

“sub-proletarian youth” would be experiencing the same fate as so many

of their contemporaries: being sucked into the atomized consumerist

existance of full blown proletraians, drinking aguardiente or playing

video games in Ocosingo, or most likely of all just watching their

sisters, brothers and children die of treatable illnesses as they get

progressively pushed off the land.

Finally I want to address the question of the negotiations and the EZLNs

“failure” to militarily defend the communities against army incursions

and paramilitary violence. The fact of the matter is that the EZLN has

not defended the communities except in so far as they have organized the

heroic resistance of women and children armed with sticks, stones, and

occasionaly machetes. Marcos has asserted from the start that the EZLN

has little faith in the negotiations and it is clear that they seem them

as an opportunity to buy time and build broader political support in

Mexico and the rest of the world. This is a tactical decisin that one

might disagree with but I think its clear that it has succeeded in

broadening the Zapatistas support outside of Chiapas. The government

here is looking for any provocation they can to justify a military

assault on the EZLN and with almost 70,000 troops already in Chiapas

there is little doubt that a bloodbath would result. Whether or not it

would destroy the Zapatistas is again a mattter for debate, but the

human costs to the indigenous communities would be immense. I believe

that sooner or later the Zapatistas will have to start shooting back and

one might argue that their failure to do so so far has only undercut

their bases of support in the communities. It is certainly clear that

there are some in the communities who want to relaunch the war. I don’t

really feel qualified to say who is right on this question. I do know

that the commandancia of the EZLN are undoubtedly far more in touch with

the actual wishes of the communities and the military realities of their

situation than I am and certainly than D&R are. I don’t say this in

order to suggest that they have no right to make their criticisms, but

rather that those criticisms should be taken seriously only to the

degree that they reflect an actual familiarity with the conditions as

they exist her in Chiapas. Bob Brown asks what D&R’s own practice is.

Again this might be percieved as an attempt to just silence their

criticisms. But I believe it actually matters. There are hundreds of

thousands of people here living on the edge of survival and the EZLN is,

as of now, and with all of its limitations, their most serious line of

defense. If we are going to critique their practice we need to be able

to offer a coherent alternative and our own practice in this regard

becomes relevant to how seriously we should take the critique. Without

the EZ the “sub-proletarian youth” of Chiapas are going to need allies

who can deliver and pronto because this is a life and death situation.

What do D&R have to offer them?

For solidarity without illusions

CD

P.S I just read Monty’s piece and have to say that he said much of what

I wanted to say but more clearly. I have one provocative point to add

though. Monty and others, while acknowledging the

Maoist/Guevarist/Leninist origins of the EZLNs first nucleii, emphasize

how much they have changed and rightly criticize the view of such forces

as being impervious to change. One thing few of us pro-Zapatista folks

have addressed however is the question of those elements of their

original politics that they have RETAINED and how important are they to

the Zapatista’s success so far. For instance, could the space for

indigenous autonomy opened up by the EZLN actually have been maintained

for so long without the hierarchical military structure of the EZLN that

is clearly an inheritance from their Leninist past? Marcos and the EZLN

in general are purposefully vague about certain aspects of their

politics in order to attract the broadest possible international

support. Autonomists are allowed to see the Zapatistas as libertarian

communists, while Refundacion is allowed to see them in terms of their

continuity with the old school. Again I suspect the truth is somewhere

in between. I’m less interested in claiming the Zapatistas for any

particular trend than in understanding the lessons of their actual

practice. It seems to me that its not simply an accident that it was

Leninists and not libertarians who were able to build the most serious

autonomy project in the Western Hemisphere and that we need to look at

the ALL the aspects of the Zapatista’s theory, practice and structure

that made that possible and not just write off the parts we might find

embarassing. In other words what are the parts of their Guevarism,

Maoism, etc.. that were right?