💾 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
➡️ 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
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?