Re: AUT: re Passe Montagne doc

[chrisjes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Compa~neros/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 Z solidarity folks. I think
there is an uncritical attitude among many of us about the actual
shortcomings of the Z. More seriously I think there is some self-censorship
that folks engage in because they don't want to weaken the Z 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 Z  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 Z communities who are not part of their military hierarchy. Does
Marcos' prominence indicate the existence of a contradiction within the Z?
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 Z 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 Z who had already spent years on precisely
that project. What is astounding about the Z 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 Z'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 Z 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 EZ'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 Z 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 EZ 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 EZ is a "brake on the development of
the autonomous capacity for struggle" imagining that the "sub-proletarian
youth" who make up the EZs base would otherwise be developing that capacity
if only the Z 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 EZs
"failure" to militarily defend the communities against army incursions and
paramilitary violence. The fact of the matter is that the EZ 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 EZ 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 Zs support outside
of Chiapas. The government here is looking for any provocation they can to
justify a military assault on the EZ 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 Z is again a mattter for debate, but the human
costs to the indigenous communities would be immense. I believe that sooner
or later the Z 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
EZ 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
christopher day

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-Z 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 Z's success so far. For instance, could the space
for indigenous autonomy opened up by the EZ actually have been maintained
for so long without the hierarchical military structure of the EZ that is
clearly an inheritance from their Leninist past? Marcos and the EZ 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 Z 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 Z 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 Z'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?



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