AUT: ezln-mexico-autonomy

[Montyneill <Montyneill@xxxxxxx>]

Below are notes taken from notes written while traveling in Mexico, observing,
reading and talking, over a several week span. I have written them up as a
contribution to thinking about the situation in Mexico and why the zapatistas
are important beyond humanitarian concerns, but their struggle, and the
indigenous struggle in general, is an important part of the planetary anti-
capitalist struggle. They are only a fragment, and abbreviated, but I hope
clear enough to be understood and to further discussion.

Parts of the discussion reference what has been called the "ab irato" piece, a
critique of the EZLN which has had sizeable circulation and has favorably
impressed some folks on the left. I find the piece deeply flawed on a number
of levels -- lack of evidence and faulty reasoning being to fundamental
problems -- and so have included some critique of that piece along the way.

I also reference discussions on the aut-op-sy discussion list, though I know
not everyone who gets this will have seen that discussion. I have tried to
make the points clear enough so that they are not dependent on knowing that
discussion.

If you get this more than once, my apologies.

Lastly, these are rough -- I simply do not have to time to prepare a more
polished piece at this time. I apologize for confusions or lack of clarity
that occur due to my time constraints.

Monty Neill
<montyneill@xxxxxxx>

Notes on struggles in Mexico, February - March 1998
Monty Neill

"On 12 October, 1492, America discovered capitalism." -- Eduardo Galeano

Impact of EZLN in Mexico



The indigenous movement. That movement sometimes described as "Civil rights,"
(which is only partly true, is more than that), which involves also issues of
dignity and pride and obtaining respect -- also for autonomy and "territory"
-- that is, right of indigenous communities to control territory and govern
themselves.

This is clearly anathema to the Mexican state, which is provoking extended
civil war in Chiapas and risking ever deeper crisis to itself to prevent the
indigenous from obtaining this autonomy. Why? a) control over natural
resources, esp. oil in Chiapas, also hydroelectric and agriculture for export
(including forests). b) access to labor power, to ability to produce humans as
waged workers who see no other option (except the lottery or somehow becoming
a capitalist), who accept capitalist economic rationality as the normal state
of being [I think Marcos underestimates this aspect, views it as not relevant
to capital at this time]. c) autonomy for indigenous is a dangerous model,
could spread, esp. to urban barrios which contain many indigenous or folks
whose social organization is similar in many ways to the indigenous and who in
pushing themselves for autonomy could create increasing space against
capitalist planning and organization of life. In sum, Mexican capital and
state, probably US state and Wall St., see indigenous autonomy as something
which must be smashed/prevented because it constitutes a potentially serious
and expanding problem for them if they cannot smash it.

Certainly the zapatistas did not create the indigenous movement, which has
existed now for half a millennium, continually recurring, as the indigenous
both survive and change through the evolution of  Mexico. More recently, there
has been substantial amounts of indigenous organizing and struggling in
southern Mexico, of which the EZLN is a part. But it seems clear that the EZLN
has provided space and inspiration for a stronger and larger indigenous
movement. EZLN insisting that indigenous from across Mexico should be part of
the dialog at San Andres, shift in EZLN to expand concepts of indigenous
demands in their demands, the issue of dignity for indigenous, and the
creation on the ground of the autonomous municipalities have all spurred the
indigenous struggle.

The relationship to other sectors in Mexico is not as directly clear. Mexico
has a sizeable and complex left. One initiative of the EZLN has been to try to
bring these oft-feuding sectors into a higher level of unity to combat capital
and the state. This has, I think, not been successful. However, the EZLN push
which has put forward ideas of autonomy and unity without one group's hegemony
have I think provoked thought and action in Mexico of new kinds, for example
among barrio organizations. Less directly, that the EZLN openly, even
militarily, confronted the Mexican state and international capital has
probably influenced, helped condition, what appears to be a now-growing
industrial/unionized worker movement. Many factors have contributed to this,
from the desperation of vastly declining incomes and unemployment to massive
privatization to various independent union efforts to the death of Fidel
Velasquez and the growing inability of the PRI to even pretend to offer a deal
to the workers. Nonetheless, the Zapatista front has basically no
organizational presence in the factories and little in the barrios, though the
front also works in alliance with barrio groups and some left unions. Outside
Chiapas and the indigenous, the zapatista front is mostly a narrower strata of
the working class, such as university personnel and groups representing more
"middle class" demands (most of what is labeled "middle class" are a sector of
the working class, not a distinct class within capital).

So, it seems to me that the Zapatistas have been very important in the upsurge
of struggle in Mexico. The Zapatista's have not claimed to lead such a
struggle. Arguably, a little more leadership might at times have been helpful,
as in the chaotic initiation of the Frente last fall. The Zapatista
perspective has presumed the alliance of many groups, not the creation of  a
united party across the country.



Democracy among the indigenous and in the EZLN.

I do not presume any expertise on the nature of democracy within indigenous
communities or the EZLN.  I have gathered some information, which I view as
tentative. One source for me has been Gustavo Esteva, who has written
extensively on the EZLN and on indigenous autonomous struggles, though I am
not sure how much is easily accessible. I will rely on him and an indigenous
activist/leader Adelfo Redino Montes (a Mixe from Oaxaca) and more scattered
pieces I got from other people -- but these are my interpretations, not
their's. [I will send a copy of this to Gustavo and ask him to post to me, for
forwarding, relevant and accessible materials, so that interested people will
have some access to those pieces.]

Deneuve and Reeve in "Behind the Balaclavas of South-East Mexico" (hereafter,
D&R) open their argument against the EZLN by asserting "the totalitarian
character of Mayan and Incan societies no longer needs to be demonstrated."
But their only references are to the ancient civilizations, now nearly 500
years gone. The modes of governance and internal structures of the present are
not addressed. D&R do not address any possibility of variety in such modes and
structures. By not addressing the present, they effectively claim the
existence of  totalitarian communal societies which are manipulated by the
urbanites, personified by "Marcos." They do undercut this aspect of their
argument by simultaneously pointing to the decomposition of indigenous
communities, the immigration of many indigenous into the Lacandon, and the
semi- proletarianization of many of the indigenous. [On this latter, D&R rely
mostly on John Ross; the points on migration to the Lacandon and becoming
wage-workers, as far as they go, appear to be substantially accurate; see
Collier, George. (1994). Basta! Land and the Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas.
Oakland. Institute for Food and Development Policy.] [The Ab Irato text is on
line, with the footnotes, at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill//Lobby/3909/beyond.html ]

The presumptions then are that the indigenous communities are
contemporaneously totalitarian and that proletarianization has shattered the
communal aspects of the communities. But neither point is established with any
evidence. Counter this is the perspective that the indigenous communities
practice a reasonable form of democracy (no one claims perfection among those
I talked with), which is through the struggle being enriched and deepened; and
that despite the proletarianizing aspects, the communal aspects remain
powerful. Gustavo describes some aspects of  this in various of his writings,
though with more reference to Oaxaca than Chiapas. But the descriptions do
pose a counter to the perspective on the assemblies presented by D&R.

The assemblies are  a mode of community discussion and decision-making. For
major issues, the assembly process occurs mostly not within the formal
meeting, but via discussions over time in which process a general consensus is
developed, which is then formalized in an assembly. If true, then the visible
discussion in the assembly masks the actual, really important processes.
Within this form, it seems to me, there can be more of less real democratic
participation -- which poses questions not only about the indigenous, but
about any efforts at participatory self-governance, autogestion, etc. It could
be highly egalitarian, where all voices are heard and respected (if not paid
equal attention, as that would be both dangerous and impossible) or merely the
vehicle for a small clique to dominate and control the whole through any
variety of mechanisms -- family size and ties, personal wealth or control over
some lever of wealth, physical intimidations, etc. What I hear more than not
is that there is a good deal of real discussion, but the communities are
certainly not fully egalitarian, in which individual differences in knowledge,
skills, experience, wisdom would count, but structures of domination such as
patriarchy would not exist. Patriarchy certainly exists -- Gustavo says the
nature and extent of the patriarchy varies greatly, however, across indigenous
groups. And through the struggle, patriarchy is being subverted. In aut-op-sy
discussion, the point that women have become a majority of the officers in the
EZLN is discounted on the grounds that the EZLN is an army. But it is likely,
I would think, that the demonstrated competence of the women will influence
the development of the societies and it represents an important weakening of
patriarchy within the communities. A final note for now on patriarchy: it
seems far more likely and healthy for the indigenous communities to attack and
positively supplant patriarchy on their own than to submit to the dissolving
forces of the international market and the atomization and commodification of
human relations.

At  minimum, the question of community democracy among indigenous in Mexico is
far more complex and I would say hopeful than allowed for -- with no evidence
-- by D&R. Strengthening real participatory democracy will everywhere be a
difficult and complex process of struggle. Finding non-perfection will be very
easy, but not very helpful unless accompanied by real discussion about how to
help strengthen it. (What I call participatory democracy might be called
radical democracy, people's power, or some other term.) I am recently
wondering therefore more about the paris commune, which lasted a few months
and which has had over a century of Marxist and anarchists pointing to it as a
model. I don't know, do we have detailed analyses (ethnographic, we might say
today) describing its real actual functions, and perhaps the sorts of
limitations that would raise hackles of todays purists?

Lastly, I remain, as I noted in a post to aut-op-sy the other day, seriously
disturbed by the claims that, in effect, the CCRI, the civilian body to whom
the EZLN is responsible, is a front for Marcos. The "evidence" presented by
D&R takes the form first of stating the well-known points that various student
left types, including Leninists and Maoists and Guevarists, went to the
countryside after 1968; and that Marcos was one such person (along with a few
comrades). Since D&R don't really know who Marcos is, they assert he/they are
like the other Maoists (some of whom are now important functionaries in the
Zedillo regime planning the destruction of the zapatistas and the indigenous
communities). They give particular importance to the point that "The voices of
the rebels of Chiapas are reduced to just one voice." They then dismiss the
discussions which occur as being manipulated and/or covers for decisions made
elsewhere, presumably by the single voice, Marcos. The only actual "evidence"
is the supposed logic by which the people are manipulated because that is what
Maoists do, and Marcos etc. must be Maoists because others who went to Chiapas
were, and they all claimed to be transformed by the experience, but of course
none of them ever are (because, having been Maoists, they are incapable of
real change. (If you think this is a caricature of D&R's argument, re-read it
carefully and see if you can find actual evidence of D&R's claims outside of
this thoroughly unsupported circular closed-loop form of reasoning. Of course,
it could all be true -- it is like disproving a negative -- but if true, let
us see actual evidence of what goes on which would support the claims of D&R
and similar voices.)

Alternatives to some of the points? The world views, perspectives and politics
of Marcos and the urbanite left did in fact change. The CCRI really does make
the decisions, not Marcos. (For example, I have not heard controverted the
point that Marcos advised against the January 1994 uprising, but the community
discussion processes concluded the uprising was the best course.) Marcos was
selected by the CCRI to be the public voice to Spanish-speaking mestizo-Euro
Mexico and the world because they thought he would be effective (as he has
been in many ways). And why would the indigenous let a Marcos persuade them to
bring down the wrath of the Mexican state and army (even assuming no one
predicted the paramilitaries) -- what kind of power would some starving
basically unarmed, unable to talk with most of the indigenous, virtual
foreigners be able to accrue in such circumstances. I think that scenario is
only plausible if you are persuaded that either the indigenous were so
desperate they would try anything, or as has been stated by the Mexican
government, both in 1994 and again now, and at least "politely" implied by
some left critics of the EZLN, the indigenous are really incapable of thinking
and acting on their own.

As an aside, the other major bone to pick of D&R is the Zapatista's
patriotism. Some of us in Midnight Notes addressed this at some length in the
long version of Toward the New Commons, so I won't go into detail here (it is
posted at www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3843/mngcjm.html). I will only relay
in brief two stories from Gustavo. One, an indigenous community in Chiapas
talked at length, over months, in response to the question, given what Mexico
has done to you, why do you love it so much? The response was they happened to
live in what is now Mexico and were therefore responsible for the land and
people, which they did love. Two, indigenous from across Mexico have in some
discussions posed the issue of what would be the remaining tasks of the
Mexican states after the creation of autonomous networked communities? The
answer, to name ambassadors. I argued to Gustavo, but why then bother with the
national trappings? And in any event, if the indigenous of Chiapas, etc.
develop autonomy and sustain it, would not those of Guatemala also do so? And
then what meaning would their be to "Mexico"? The answer of course is probably
none. Zedillo is correct in one way to say that the San Andres accords attacks
"Mexico" if Mexico is identified as the state -- but not if it is identified
as a geographic entity within which now lives nearly 100 million people.
Perhaps there are ways of addressing the problem of  nationalism beyond the
rhetorical denunciation of all nationalisms. I think the zapatistas and
indigenous are proposing a Mexico that is not a defensive set of borders with
a state controlling the space within the borders, but is something else that
creates a transitional opportunity.


Class.

I am not happy, do not find useful, the term "civil society." In New Commons,
we argue that we face the problem of an absence of useful terms to use for
analysis and for public discussion, and civil society does not in the US seem
to offer much help. Gustavo argues that in Mexico, the term has no reference
to its uses by neoliberals. A comrade I will call T, who works with urban
workers and barrio groups in Mexico and is associated with a new coalition
called M.U.L.P., thinks the term is more problematic than Gustavo says. But as
I followed at least Gustavo's use of the term (and I cannot say whether it is
that of the EZLN or of Marcos) and compared it with how MT used the term
"working class" (which I, and Midnight Notes prefers, and MT's use of the term
seems to be essentially the same as that of Notes -- see New Commons), I think
they are talking about very much the same thing.

MULP -- Movimiento do Unidad y Lucha Popular -- involves various barrio
groups, left unionists, other urban groups, with tens of thousands of
participants, in Mexico City and Hidalgo as well as other states, including
Chiapas. (A short article in Spanish is in "Trabajores," the magazine of the
Workers University -- check out their web site at www.spin.com.mx/uom/ -- I am
not sure how much of the issues are posted at the site, maybe just summaries
of articles.) MT says some of these groups are Leninists (e.g., the Francisco
Villa Popular Front; 10K people in it and a serious urban force), but most are
trying to rethink questions of organization and power. He is critical of the
zapatistas because he thinks that despite their line of exercising not seizing
power, they have not really developed their thinking on this. (He does think
the EZLN is democratic in the zapatista communities.)

Gustavo argues that the indigenous communities are by and large 'undivided'
communities. This does not apply to patriarchy, but to class. While D&R
emphasized the supposed demand for individual plots of land, the indigenous
hold the land collectively. And tho the Mexican constitution was amended under
Salinas to allow privatization of ejido land (another major spur to the
Zapatista uprising), in fact the indigenous have not only not privatized, they
seek to expand the communal/collective.

[Ironically, this communal aspect has played against the indigenous who have
been driven out of their communities in Chiapas by the paramilitaries -- when
they leave, their lands are reapportioned; in the US, they would hold title
and have recourse (in theory at least -- there are many ways to drive people
off their lands).]

Undivided means there are not exploiters of labor power within the
communities. The closest to it have been "caciques" -- bosses actually imposed
by the state and the PRI -- and commercial middlemen/moneylenders, some of
whom come from the indigenous. The development of autonomous municipalities
and cooperative production and marketing arrangements have been directed to
end the role of the moneylenders and middlemen and replace the caciques with
democratic assemblies and the assemblies' appointed officials.

[There is an issue here of the democratic nature of this process as well. The
assembly process is that assemblies nominate people to posts, people are
selected, they do not run. It is a powerful obligation, and positions like
'mayor' carry far more responsibility than power and usually cost the
officeholder or his (still, usually) family a good deal of money. Terms are
short, usual a year. A person interested in public positions often will hold a
series of them, of increasing responsibility, if s/her serves the community
well and is thus nominated. The social democratic party, the PRD, claims that
this is not really democratic, that anyone should be able to stand for
elections. The San Andres accords, however, would give the indigenous the
right to decide their governmental forms, and the PAD supports the accords --
the ones the government signed but which Zedillo now has tried to eliminate by
passing a law through congress backed by the PRI and the right wing PAN
parties. Again, the form seems to be at least as reasonable as elections, and
the real issues are not the forms but how the process operates in reality,
what is the actual content.]


Indigenous autonomy

If in fact (again, excepting the vital issue of patriarchy) these are at least
mostly undivided communities, then this supports the political argument that
the fight for autonomy of these communities is a potentially powerful lever of
attack on capital. That is a lengthy and complicated discussion; it provoked
debate at the second encuentro (particularly the issue of economic autonomy),
and has provoked some debate on the aut-op-sy list as well. It is an issue I
hope we will explore in the near future in some depth in Midnight Notes. For
now, I will only make a few brief points.

If the indigenous can expand self-reliance economically, can develop a
cooperative and communal economics, and can maintain an autonomous
participatory democracy, and can then create networks of such spaces and
defend them against state, corporations and the global market -- a long series
of ifs -- then they will be more than interesting side phenomena in the
planetary class struggle (as some folks seem to perceive them) and be
important factors in developing sustainable anti-capitalism and new
possibilities of social life. (I think their struggles have been important,
such as their effects within Mexican struggles and in at least slowing the
expansion of NAFTA to Chile and other countries, as well as the zapatista's
pushing at least the opening stage of new forms of planetary support for,
connections among, circulation of struggles via the encuentros --  but I am
here addressing possible longer-term effects of autonomous spaces.)

Gustavo makes the interesting argument that within the indigenous communities,
"the economy" is relegated to the margins of peoples' social lives. That is,
rather than dominate life as it does in say the US, social relations other
than those of production dominate social life. I cannot comment on the
accuracy of this conclusion, which he bases on his years of work with
indigenous communities in Mexico. If it is largely true, then these folks are
living aspects of post-capitalism -- which we might learn from and certainly
should support. It poses the question of whether everybody must be
proletarianized and fully commodified via capitalism before communism can
(somehow) be created. (Again, Towards the New Commons addressed some of these
issues.) The indigenous struggles suggest a leap past capitalism without
having to be fully socialized within capitalism.

I am not arguing they are "outside" of capitalism -- they are exploited and we
in Midnight Notes have argued that the sort of exploitation they are subject
to is essential to capitalism, a point on which we disagree with Gustavo who
thinks they are not essential to capitalist accumulation -- we'd agree that
small numbers are not (who cares if 60.000 coffee farmers in a coop keep the
market relations outside their coop in a world of nearly 5 billion people) but
that taken as a whole, the "two-thirds" world is the source of vast surplus
for capitalist accumulation. The issues posed by Gustavo is first whether the
internal relations are non-capitalist and whether such relations can survive
and expand. (I think they will either expand or be absorbed by/ crushed by
capital.)

This "model" -- expanding autonomous spaces -- is hardly new, in one or
another form. It does parallel the emergence of capitalism which saw pockets
of capitalist domination in some aspects of social existence spread in
multifold ways: this proposes that social life which marginalizes the
capitalist economic relations should spread and develop.

Finally, I do not know what direct relevance this approach or "model" has for
the "one-third world," that not only fully dependent on wage labor but where
the social relations have been fundamentally commodified (despite real and
continuing resistance to such commodification) and life subordinated to both
accumulation and market relations; and where there have developed massive
means of production that should be taken over, and either closed down or
modified for socially reasonable relations and ends. In Oaxaca there is only
one sizeable factory in a city of hundreds of thousands. But there is no need
for there to be only one process of struggle against and to get out of
capitalism. If the indigenous autonomy model is to have success, I do not
think they can succeed on their own -- capital will eventually prevail unless
struggles in other social and geographic and productive spheres coalesce with
the indigenous struggles to push capital back and finally to end it. But that,
I think, is true of any sectoral struggle against capital.



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