Re: Zapatistas And Conference

[squert@xxxxxxxxxx (Max Anger)]

Hello, Again
My short rant on was indeed just that. Not fully fleshed-
out, stating my points in extreme, sarcastic terms. I
suppose that I was hoping to provoke comment rather
than make an exhaustive study of the subject. But I
should indeed have used a more respectful tone towards
those I was trying to get comment out of. I suppose I
fell into the E-mail trap of trying to get ideas out
as quickly as possible. Note that this article still isn't
as fleshed out as a normal article would be - oh well.

I stand behind the substance of my post. This gives me
the opportunity to add documentation and precision to
my previous vague assertions. Unfortunately, this also
requires more than few informal moments to write.
[I have changed the line breaks in my and
Harry's post and corrected typos and mis-spellings in
my post. I don't believe this in anyway mis-represents
either side but if anyone disagrees, I apologize in
advance.]

Harry Cleaver Wrote:
>Max: An argument deserves as careful a response as
>went into its construction. What you have given is a
>rant, not an argument, so what you get below is
>pretty cursory. I did go to your web site and read
>your slightly longer pamphlet --and have commented on
>it too, below.
The article on my web site is interesting but it is
NOT mine but that of a comrade so I won't be replying
to that.

>Harry
>.....................................................
...........
>On Fri., 22 Mar 1996, Max Anger
Thought for about ten minute and wrote, rather
sarcastically:
>> Ah, a chance to inject some actual discussion about
>> the left of capital. These are only rough notes,
>> and possibly have some embarrassing
>> errors and typos. But seeing as all discussion of
>> the Zapatistas has utterly positive,
>> it certainly time for a different view.
>>
>> Quite a few of us aspiring first world anti-
>> capitalist revolutionaries are tremendously
>> impressed by any third world revolutionary group
>> that doesn't call itself
>> Marxist-Leninist and actually does something.
[snip]
>> But in fact, the Zapatistas have similar politics
>> to other Leninist gangs except for being even
>> further to the right.
>> After a few theatrical town take-overs, [snip]
>> the Zapatistas' activities have
>> consisted of glorifying themselves
>> and pushing the "democratic process"
>> (yes, I know they are surrounded and hiding in the
>> hills BUT their behavior is held up as a model to
>> emulate. They have had the option of pushing
>> revolutionary politics
>> instead of their reformism)
>> [snip] Their theatrics, including their previous
>> continental conference, were critical factors in
>> legitimizing the recent Mexicans elections
>> and thereby the present Mexican government. Thus
>> they and their conference worked quite hard against
>> the class struggle.
>>
>Max: More assertion. You ASSERT but do not ARGUE that
their
>activities "legitimized" the 1994 elections
>and were "against the class struggle",
>whatever that means to you.
[In each snip above, Harry notes that I make a nasty
and "slanderous" assertion without details to back
them up. For flow's sake, I back-up all my theses
here.]
Using town take-overs as a way getting the world's
attention on you is not necessarily good OR bad. It
became a way to prove to the world that there was
insurectionary struggle in Mexico - armed movements
have been around for a while in Mexico but none were
reported on by CNN before.

But once you've grabbed the stage, the question is
what do you with it. What you say and what you call
for are especially important. I do not call anything
that fights for concessions from capital reformist.
The Zapatista line here is reformist because it pins
hopes for change on a mythical civil society that has
the force to pressure that existing government.

To cite Subcommander Marcos
(Interviewer - "Do you think the State has the
capacity, as it stands now, to democratize itself?")

"No, not if they aren't forced to do it.
If there's to be some political reform that
will truly advance democratization, it will
only result from the pressure of civil society.
We have made it very clear that political space
isn't going to come out of our offices."

As Harry notes later, what the Zapatistas meant by
civil society is critical here. And they EFFECTIVELY
SAID that civil society was all social forces within
the country including capitalists. The 3rd declaration
of the Lacondon Jungle calls on "all social and
political forces of the country, to all honest
Mexicans, to all those who struggle for the
democratization of the national reality"  Love And
Rage (March/April 1995). And this vague group is
target of all of their appeals. The language was not
simply an effort not sound Leninist. First of all, the
rhetoric of "The people" and "all honest Mexicans" IS
Stalinist rhetoric, the rhetoric of "the working class
leading a government of progressive forces." Second,
the Zapatistas specifically called for honest
representational elections. Quoting Zapatistas!
Documents of the
New Mexican Revolution, (On Harry's web site)

Surrounded by 11 well-armed men--almost kids--
Major Mario denied that the EZLN "seeks power."
He explained: "We haven't proposed socialism,"
but said the Indigenous people and campesinos of
Mexico "only want the fulfillment of the 10
points we have stated. We want democracy and
elections without fraud, independence, land for
all the campesinos, work, and housing. We want to
have health care, justice, education--but not the
kind to keep us stupid; that they stop killing
the Indians, that they treat us like humans, that
we eat not only pozol, but meat, like people
elsewhere. These are very simple points," he
explains vehemently in his rough Spanish.

And this call for representative democracy was not
abstract. Since they did not call for a boycott of the
elections and did call for votes against the
conservative parties, this showed to the Mexican
public that they did not have a problem with the camp
of the liberal/progressive parties. (They may indeed
have ALSO called vaguely for a democratization of
daily life and may have even wanted that more but this
is irrelevant for their place in platform for
discussion they gotten in the mainstream media.)

To Quote Love And Rage (March/April 1995)

"They [PRD activists] entered into Aguascalientes, the
site of the CND national meeting, holding hands and
shouting 'Viva Cuahtemoc Cardenas!' with the strongly
altruistic sentiment of leaving their boots and tents
behind, with the great illusion of posing for photos
with the Sup [Subcommander Marcos], so that they, upon
their return, could show the picture to their
relatives and friends.."
>
>> The Zapatistas have grabbed the lime-light, with
>> the help of both the developing anarchist press and
>> the mainstream press, but have pushed a program
>> that had not intention of over-throwing the
>> existing corrupt state in Mexico. (Not to mention
>> being explicitly nationalistic and explicitly
>> envisioning capitalism continuing for the
>> foreseeable future.)
>>
>
>Max: Again mere assertion, no evidence. Plus simple
>misrepresentation: they have rejected the object of
>seizing state power, Leninist style, NOT that of
>overthrowing the "existing corrupt state".

They did reject the goal of over-throwing the existing
state at the point when they had the initiative in
publicity. Their "Third Declaration Of the Lacadona
Jungle" describes the Zapatistas' attitude towards the
elections in the most militant-sounding terms
possible. "Our arms were laid down and were put aside,
so that the legal struggle could demonstrate its
possibilities and limitations"

This same document says that now that the government
has shown itself to be determined always to use fraud,
the Zapatistas were calling for a new constitutional
government, still based on representative democracy
and still oriented towards managing a (reformed)
capitalist economy.

Zapatista communications however, pointed to these
elections as being the key to the chance for change.
[The Marco interview quote above clearly implies this.
As do the great preponderance of their declarations.]

>As for their explicit nationalism, so what? given the
>context: the Yugoslavia breakup debacle and the
>certainty that the Mexican state would seek to
>isolate them from other Mexicans by charging that
>"autonomy" means secession?
If you only talk about "autonomy," this confusion
might happen. If you talked about revolution in your
region and the entire world, confusion with Yugoslavia
wouldn't be very likely although you still wouldn't
look to good the evening new. But basically, the
government and media will distort whatever you say.
Revolutionaries have to base their language on a clear
program, not a program that avoids current media bug-
a-boos.
>"Explicitly envisioning capitalism continuing"?
>Where? A better characterization would probably be
>that they didn't issue the traditional Left call-for
>or evocation of its instantaneous abolition.
>Again the reason has been clear: to separate
>themselves from the usual Leftist jargon which could
>be used to stereotype and dismiss them. An analysis
>of their writings (see the introduction I wrote to
>ZAPATISTAS!) makes clear their anti-capitalism.
>The call for international organization against
>neoliberalism --which is as good a name as any for
>the current phase of capitalist initiative and
>strategy-- also makes their anti-capitalism clear.

The "traditional Left" hasn't issued calls for the
abolition of capitalism for at least fifty years. The
ideology of the former pro-Moscow "Communist Parties"
the world over was for all "progressive people" to
unite against mult-national capital - just the way the
Zapatistas issue calls to "all honest Mexicans."

Multi-national capital was indeed the most advanced
form of capital at that time but this doesn't make
their anti-capitalism clear. Leninism has had a
program of trying to compromise with the national
capital of "oppressed nations" against multi-national,
"imperialist," capital ever since Lenin wrote
"Imperialism, The Highest Stage Of Capitalism." As
former Maoist, the Zapatista's THEORISTS seem to be
continuing this traditional approach.

As for them envisioning capitalism continuing
indefinitely, consider among the various revolutionary
laws of the Zapatistas, in their first proclamation,
pushing various laudatory reforms of living
conditions, is this one
(Third Housing law):
The inhabitants of the zone who pay
rent, and have resided in the same dwelling for fewer
than 15 years, will pay only 10% of the salary
earned by the head of the family as rent, and
will not pay at all after having resided in the
dwelling for 15 years.

(Fourth Labor law): Every worker will have a right to
a certain amount of non-transferable stock in the
company for which they work, the exact quantity
to be determined by the number of years that the
worker has worked for the company--this in
addition to their current pensions. The monetary
value of said stock will be used for the worker's
retirement, by his wife or by his beneficiary.
(This law by the way actually gives workers more of a
stake in maintaining capitalist relations in their
area)

I wouldn't say that the Zapatistas' lack of opposition
to commodity relations is something that would by
itself put them in the camp of the enemy. What they do
is more important. But it is an important in the over-
all picture of what they do.
>
>> Anarchists and everyone who makes a fetish of self-
>> organization
>Max: Another sarcastic gibe! What is the purpose of
your
>intervention in a list named "aut-op-sy" whose self-
>description makes clear that its founders have what
>you call, in your own nasty way, "a fetish of
>self-organization"?
Making a fetish of self-organization is saying that
any self-organization is good. Do you believe that
self-organization for the purposes of maintaining
capitalism is good?

>>[snip; I repeat myself and Harry notes this]

>> The Zapatistas essentially describe the struggle
>> as everyone versus the twenty families.
>
>Max: Another gross misrepresentation. The Zapatistas
>have made clear that the struggle is against many
>enemies: the PRI Party-State, international corporate
>capital, racism in Mexico, corrupt police,
>rapacious and violent land-stealing ranchers, and so
>on. Such misrepresentation suggests an utter lack of
>seriousness on your part, as far as political
>argument goes. More interesting would be a critical
>appraisal of what they HAVE said, e.g., their use of
>the concept of "civil society" which has meant many
>things to many different people in many different
>contexts, or the general absence of the term "class"
>in their discourse.
Indeed, whether the Zapatistas were struggling against
the twenty families, or them plus PRI-state plus
ranchers is not perhaps the clearest question.
A more useful position, which I've document above is
this: If you seek the support of "all honest
Mexicans," you are effectively saying that only a few
bad apples at the top are at fault. They essentially
reduce the struggle to a struggle against the highest
elites.
>>Their difference with Leninism is that they don't
>>even call for over-throw this faction of the
>>bourgeois, they only call for democratizing the
>>country and thereby sharing the twenty families'
>>wealth without over-throwing them.
>Max: I repeat: Again mere assertion, no evidence.
>Plus simple misrepresentation: they have rejected the
>object of seizing state power, Leninist style, NOT
>that of overthrowing the "existing corrupt state".
What is election participation if not rejecting the
goal of over-throwing the state. See Marcos quote
above.
>>(Councilists might say they confused representative
>>democracy with direct democracy but I would say that
>>challenging capital matters more than talking about
>>exactly what kind of organization you have.)
>>
>
>Max: I don't know what "councilists" would say but it
>is you who are either confused or misrepresenting.
>The Zapatistas have rejected the formal electoral
>politics of bourgeois representative democracy in
>favor of direct democracy in the villages and
>communities of Chiapas and the SEARCH for new forms
>of democracy a wider levels. The convocation of the
>CND was precisely to set such a search in motion on a
>wide scale.
>

The 3rd Declaration Of The Lacandon Jungle only went
as far as rejecting the current government and only
then once the left had been trounced in the elections
(the consensus of observers was that without fraud,
the PAN(rightest party) would have won the elections
rather the ruling PRI (centrist)).

I would have been absolutely clear if I'd said "The
Zapatista conflate direct democracy and representative
democracy."
The Zapatistas have spoken highly of the directly
democratic structures of indigenous people and have
lauded the idea of democracy in general. But their
explicit goal is still representative democracy ,
managing a capitalist economy for the Mexican nation.
The same "Third Declaration Of the Lacadona Jungle"
calls for as point 2  "The reform of the electoral law
in terms that guarantee: clean elections, legitimacy,
equity, non-partisan and non-governmental citizenship,
recognition of all national, regional and local
political forces, and that convene new general
elections in the federation."

The Zapatistas at different points seemed to be hoping
that something more than politics as usual would come
out of the previous conference. But one can no more
invite the capitalist left to create new ideas against
the system than one can forge iron with plastic.

>> It is indeed interesting to note how the Zapatistas
>> developed and how they have learned something from
>> indigenous people they were organizing among
>> (Interviews with Marco are worth reading for this).
>> On the other hand, certain comrades returning from
>> Mexico have noted that various indigenous
>> people they talked to indicated little use for
>> Marcos except for his talking to the outside world.
>
>Max: No one has been more explicit about his limited
>role of spokesperson than Marcos. However, I would
>like to see the supposed interviews referred
>to, along with full specification of who was doing
>the interviewing, under what conditions and with
>whom. For someone who worries about ad homonym
>attacks on himself, you are loose with them vis a vis
>others.

Yes, your right, I was speaking much too loosely. I
would have liked to have said speculation on
Zapatistas internal relations might lead one to
imagine that there were currents which would want to
be open about dismissing the elections etc.

>>This isn't important in the end. The Zapatistas
>>might have a rather different relation to Chiapas
>>than they do to the rest of Mexico and the rest of
>>the world. However, we are obligated to hold them to
>>account for their relation the entire world.
>>
>Max: So far "their relation [to] the entire world"
>has been to set in motion a lot of struggle, starting
>in Mexico and spreading out from there. Their call
>for continental and intercontinental meetings of all
>of those struggling against neoliberalism shows more
>imagination and optimism than any other anti-
>capitalist convocation I can think of in
>any thing like recent history.
I'm not opposed to dialog with those holding different
views. My strong reaction comes from the effective
part the Zapatistas' first conference played in again,
legitimizing the elections.

The relations of any revolutionary group is very much
through the line they push. Of course, I'm happy when
a group activity leads others to more struggle. But
the purpose of revolutionary activity is encourage
both more struggle and more conscious struggle. By
supporting the elections, the reform of capitalist
state etc., the Zapatistas seem to push those who'd
follow their implicit lead to have a less conscious
struggle with state.
>>It would be pathetic but predictable for an
>>autonomous/anarchist left to tail after the ideology
>>of the Zapatistas in the 90's in the same as the
>>liberal/Leninist left tailed after the Sandistas
>>and the FMLN in the 80's.
>>
>
>Max: What is pathetic is the tendency of the bankrupt
>old left to dismiss
>the Zapatistas because they don't fit the old molds.
>What would be a mistake would be to embrace them
>uncritically ("tail after") when they
>themselves are quite explicit about not pretending to
>"have all the answers" and demand a dialog/multilog,
>NOT followers.

Naturally many groups honestly want dialog. The
question is what sort of dialog. Those participating
the lying dialog of bourgeois elections tend to make
real alternatives less credible. And they make their
general calls for real alternatives less credible. The
Zapatistas obviously had a subjective desire to escape
such choices but reality has not permitted them this
possibility.
[See note above concerning the previous Zapatista
conference as a platform for cheer-leading the left.
One can read quite a few different narratives
concerning how this conference functioned as just
that.]

By their actions and their media attention, the
Zapatistas have inspired action. By that same token,
different groups look to them for answers. And whether
they talk about dialog or not, they have put forward a
program.

>
>> There is a longer critique of the Zapatista on my
website
>>
>> [snip incorrect URL]
>>
>> in the anti-capitalist documents section. This was
produced by the
>> Harbinger group, some close comrades.
>>
>
>Max: I tried this URL: [snip] but got no connection.
>After fiddling around I found the proper URL to be:
>http://www.webcom.com/maxang/
Yes, http://www.webcom.com/maxang/ is the correct
location
>
>So here is your text with my comments on THAT:
Which I won't comment on since this is not my text but
the text of comrade, who may or may not comment on it
himself in the future.

>Harry
>



[Clip and Put in signature]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Check out http://www.webcom/maxang/ For a critique of capital and the
information system.

Max Anger
squert@xxxxxxxxxx



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---