Contents of spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_1998/cleaver.zaps
From owner-aut-op-sy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Mon Feb 23 03:17:45 1998
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:27:38 -0500
From: owner-aut-op-sy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
To: owner-aut-op-sy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: BOUNCE aut-op-sy@localhost: Message too long (>40000 chars)
>From spoons Wed Feb 18 11:27:22 1998
Received: from mundo.eco.utexas.edu (eco.utexas.edu [128.83.172.1]) by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA72795 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:27:20 -0500
Received: from sen.eco.utexas.edu (sen.eco.utexas.edu [128.83.172.212]) by mundo.eco.utexas.edu (8.8.2/) with ESMTP id KAA05337; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:27:19 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost (hmcleave@localhost) by sen.eco.utexas.edu (8.8.6/FIU-CS-CLIENT-1.0) with SMTP id KAA25341; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:27:16 -0600 (CST)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:27:15 -0600 (CST)
From: "Harry M. Cleaver"
X-Sender: hmcleave@sen
To: Liwy
cc: aut-op-sy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: AUT: About H. M. Cleaver's Korean Collection on Zapatistas
In-Reply-To: <34E9477E.3B716F41@elim.net>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Oppps! I forgot to attach the paper. Here it is.
The Zapatistas
and the
International Circulation of Struggles
=09For a long, long time many activists have recognized two things:=20
first, that capitalism operates on a global level and second, that to=20
achieve enough power to overthrow capitalism the working class must=20
find ways to organize its own struggles at the same level. =20
=09The title of this conference implies a critique, with which I=20
agree, that something has been missing from a great many accounts of=20
the global character of capital. We have an enormous literature,=20
generated by several generations of historians and economists,=20
anthopologists and cultural critics on the character of capitalist=20
operations at the level of the world as a whole. From the study of=20
imperialism through that of the international division of labor to current=
=20
preoccupations with the latest phase of "globalization" we retain a=20
substantial literature and considerable understanding of the cleverness=20
and brutality of those operations. On the other hand, the extent and=20
depth of the study of the international character of working class=20
struggle is considerably less. Fortunately, that situation has been=20
changing somewhat with the urgency to find new effective ways to=20
counter capital's world-wide offensive during these last years. Indeed,=20
there are reasons to believe that the force of necessity has been pushing=
=20
innovation of such resistance from below faster than many have=20
recognized or been able to study and theorize. It is not at all clear,=20
however, that what we need is to oppose the globalization of capital=20
from above by a homologous globalization from below. The=20
formulation risks repeating past errors in which oppositional movements=20
mirror that which they would overcome and therefore fail to transcend it=20
even when they succeed. We are engaged in a war for our future and for=20
the future of the planet and the last thing we need is more Pyrric=20
victories in which we discover with horror that we have not won at all. =20
It is paramount, therefore, that we accelerate both our absorption of=20
recent experience and our efforts to derive lessons from it for present=20
and future tactics and strategy. In this talk I want to discuss one set of=
=20
experiences and discuss some of the questions they raise for our study,=20
our strategic thinking and our organizing.
The Zapatistas and their impact
=09The experiences that I want to address are those of the Zapatista=20
rebellion in Southern Mexico, the world wide networks of support=20
which were woven for it and the way the elaboration of those networks=20
have transcended the traditional framework of solidarity to interweave a=20
whole spectrum of different struggles into a fabric of interconnections=20
highly suggestive of directions in which we might want to move. =20
=09A movement of primarily low waged and unwaged indigenous=20
Mayan peasants, the Zapatista rebellion became public on January 1,=20
1994 when the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) came out of=20
the jungle to occupy several towns in the highlands of the state of=20
Chiapas. Since that day the images of their black ski-masked soldiers=20
and the words of their primary spokesperson Subcommandante Marcos=20
have become familiar to millions of people around the world. If this=20
particular struggle in this small, relatively unknown part of the world=20
had only generated its own handful of supporters in a widespread=20
solidarity movement as so many other struggles have done, it would still=20
be of interest to the issue of resistance to globalization as far as any su=
ch=20
movement would be that has been able to reach beyond its own locale to=20
connect with others. But the case of the Zapatistas is of particular=20
interest, it seems to me, because it has not only generated wider support=
=20
than might have been expected, it has also achieved what no other recent=20
struggle has been able to do. It has set in motion the beginnings of a=20
world-wide discussion about the current state of the class struggle and=20
of a world-wide mobilization aimed at finding new and more effective=20
ways of interlinking both opposition to capitalism and mutual aid in the=20
elaboration of alternatives. It has done this not only across space but=20
across a wide variety of very different kinds of struggle. Both of these=
=20
phenomena --discussion and mobilization-- are now widespread but still=20
limited in scope --there are many who have not joined in these=20
discussions and many struggles that remain disconnected-- but these=20
processes do seem to point in the right direction and therefore merit=20
attention.
=09There are several aspects of this struggle, the way it has=20
developed and the impact that it has had that I would like to discuss.=20
First, its indigenous character and the ways its own internal and=20
culturally determined political processes have struck a nerve among=20
those from quite different ethnic backgrounds in Mexico and elsewhere=20
in the world. Second, the key role of computer communications in the=20
global circulation of solidarity and the ability to link up with other=20
struggles elsewhere. Third, the way its analysis of current capitalist=20
policy and strategy has furthered the recognition of the common enemy=20
at this point in history --and thus encouraged a search for common=20
strategies of resistance. Fourth, the insistence of the Zapatistas on the=
=20
creation and elaboration of a diverse array of alternatives to replace=20
current capitalist institutions and relationships. Fifth, the experiences=
=20
we have had with the extension of its very local practices of encounter to=
=20
the large-scale meetings of people from many languages and different=20
backgrounds. Sixth, the serious obstacles that have been raised by our=20
growing experience in cyberspace for improving the effectiveness of the=20
international circulation of struggle. =20
1. An indigenous rebellion=20
=09Despite all the efforts of the Mexican government to prove=20
otherwise, it has become widely understood that the Zapatista rebellion=20
has been an uprising of indigenous peoples, not of one people, but of=20
several, with different, though interrelated languages and cultural=20
practices. It has been, in one sense, a renaissance of "Mexico=20
profundo", of mesoamerican civilization 500 hundred years after the=20
conquistadors destroyed its classical form. Less widely understood has=20
been the fact that this indigenous rebellion --like so many other=20
indigenous struggles around the world-- is no romantic revival of=20
cultural remnants but a newly constructed political process that has=20
interwoven the old and the new, tradition and radical change, attachment=20
to the land and hard experience with wage labor. What appeared at first=20
as a disturbance on the margins was soon revealed as an embodiment of=20
the most contemporary forms of struggle. The rebellion has sprung=20
from regions in Chiapas which, over the last twenty years, have been=20
scenes of dramatic changes, not stagnant backwaters. The Zapatista=20
movement grew out of the efforts to cope with those changes both=20
within communities and in the relationship among communities, from=20
older more established villages to those of recent vintage carved out of=20
the jungle by immigrants in processes of colonization. In a very real=20
sense, the Zapatista movement emerged as a tentative and transitionary=20
solution to precisely the problem which confronts us everywhere: how=20
to link up a diverse array of linguistically and culturally distinct people=
s=20
and their struggles, despite and beyond those distinctions, how to=20
weave a variety of struggles into one struggle that never loses its=20
multiplicity. If for no other reason, all of us who are interested in=20
accomplishing the same goal at a wider level would do well to study=20
carefully this microcosmic experiment which so suddenly exploded in=20
the political firmament with the brilliance of a supernova.
=09But at the same time this indigenous rebellion speaks to those of=20
us far from the mountains of southeastern Mexico because it has=20
organized itself in ways which constitute profound critiques of all those=
=20
modern political forms in which we have lost faith and offers one=20
example that proves viable alternatives can be, and are being,=20
constructed. Instead of demanding admittance to the established=20
political arena, the Zapatistas' have presented a severe critique of=20
representative democracy. The Zapatistas have gone far beyond=20
Mexican social democratic reformers --who merely wish to constrain the=20
ruling party in order to carve out a larger piece of the pie of governance=
=20
for themselves-- to demand the elimination of the constitutional structure=
=20
of the state that has sought to confine politics to the formal electoral=20
arena where professional politicians act out a simulacrum of democracy=20
while perpetuating the brutal exploitation by capital and the genocide of=
=20
whole peoples.=20
=09This demand was implicit in the 1996 Zapatista call for the=20
formation of a national "front" --a misleadingly named network of=20
interlinked local and regional mobilizations-- without political party=20
affiliation and with a scope of political action that bypassed electoral=20
politics. Its formal initiation in the Fall of 1997 sent a tremor of fear=
=20
through the entire Mexican political establishment, both PRIista and=20
oppositional. The explicit demand for fundamental constitutional=20
reforms that would dismantle the current structures of power was=20
enunciated by the Zapatistas in their forum on the Reform of the State=20
and in the San Andres negotiations on Indigenous Rights. They were=20
written into the final San Andres Accords --which were signed by=20
government representatives but later repudiated as threats to the integrity=
=20
of the nation. This rejection of the dominant illusions of democracy and=
=20
the organization of creative, viable alternatives outside and against the=
=20
state has had enormous appeal not only throughout Mexico but in many=20
other countries as well --for many cynical resistance has begun to=20
change into a new willingness to once more take up the problem of=20
achieving real, democratic self-determination. =20
=09On the other hand, the Zapatistas have quite explicitly rejected=20
the dominant revolutionary project of the 20th Century: the seizure of=20
state power and its consolidation in the hands of a revolutionary elite. =
=20
While many have yearned to see one of those massive gatherings of=20
hundreds of thousands of Zapatista supporters in Mexico City' Zocalo=20
suddenly turn into a seizure of the Presidential Palace and a toppling of=
=20
the PRIista state, the Zapatistas themselves have rejected such non-
solutions and called for people to organize themselves autonomously=20
from the state in ways that can lead not to its seizure but to its eclipse=
=20
and abolition. This rejection has included an explanation of how they=20
see the EZLN itself as but a mirror image of the Mexican Army and=20
therefore entirely unqualified to replace it. The Zapatista Army with all=
=20
of the formal hierarchies of any army is viewed as a distasteful and=20
temporary tool to be discarded as quickly as possible. Indeed, in many=20
ways their successful creation of new political spaces has already led to=
=20
the demotion of the Zapatista Army to a largely symbolic role. =20
=09The Zapatista political proposal is quite different. They offer=20
their own experiences of successful community self-organization and of=20
the effective weaving of networks of cooperation and collaboration=20
among diverse communities as one, but not the only, example of=20
practical alternatives to the modern state. This experience has been a=20
complex one which has evolved over a period of many years and has=20
confronted many obstacles within and among communities as well as=20
those created by the efforts of the PRIista state to maintain its own=20
structures of political control and the economic and social=20
subordinations of those communities. Among those internal obstacles=20
are racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious and gender differences which have=
=20
long weakened the ability of these indigenous communities to develop=20
alternatives capable of transcending a profound passive resistance to the=
=20
dominant order. =20
=09While discussion of these differences go beyond the scope of=20
this talk, I do want to dwell briefly on one of these internal obstacles=20
which has by no means been completely transcended but which has=20
been confronted to the point of bringing about substantial and inspiring=20
change. That obstacle is the profound patriarchal hierarchy which has=20
pervaded indigenous communities and kept women in distinctly=20
subaltern positions where they had little power over their own bodies=20
and destinies and were forbidden to own land or exercise public=20
responsibilities (cargoes). The Zapatista way of dealing with this=20
obstacle has proceeded in at least two phases: first, the acceptance of=20
women into the EZLN and a willingness to accord them rank,=20
responsibility and command just like men, and second, the acceptance=20
of an autonomous initiative of indigenous women to define and specify=20
a series of women's rights that dramatically challenged the traditional=20
structures of patriarchy. This was not, the EZLN leadership has=20
emphasized, an according of rights from the top down, but an=20
acceptance of rights demanded autonomously. This acceptance and=20
embrace of women's autonomy on their own terms is prototypical of the=20
centrality of autonomy in the Zapatista articulation of indigenous=20
demands more generally. =20
2. The key role of computer communications=20
=09Chiapas, despite some long standing tourist interest in its ancient=20
ruins and local indigenous color, occupies a relatively remote corner of=20
Mexico. The daily travails and struggles of its largely indigenous and=20
peasant population have historically been mainly of interest to=20
anthropologists and linguists. The initial explosion of rebellion on=20
January 1, 1994 led to spurt of media attention because it tore away the=20
illusions crafted by the Mexican government and its Northern backers to=20
surround and celebrate the initiation of the North American Free Trade=20
Agreement (NAFTA) on that same day. But as the Mexican government=20
responded to the rebellion by pouring some 15,000 troops into the=20
highlands and the Zapatistas retreated into the jungles, this public=20
visibility risked being purely momentary. Certainly the Mexican=20
government downplayed the rebellion and sought to isolate it. As the=20
body count dropped and fighting dwindled the Mexican government=20
expected media presence began to evaporate and looked forward to the=20
prospect of cleaning up an untidy and embarrassing situation out of=20
public view using its normal brutal methods. =20
=09This hope, however, proved futile as a wide variety of observers=20
from elsewhere in Mexico and from abroad poured into Chiapas and=20
solidarity crystallized in huge demonstrations in Mexico City and=20
elsewhere. Before long such mobilization became an endless nightmare=20
for the Mexican state and forced it to abandon an overt military solution=
=20
and enter into the last thing it wanted: a formal dialog with the rebels in=
=20
which it was forced to recognize the indigenous character of the=20
rebellion and to negotiate. In this new political space the government did=
=20
not know how to act and performed very poorly. The Zapatistas,=20
however, won not only an ever wider audience but also ever wider=20
respect and support. Eventually it would be revealed that the=20
government's negotiations were extremely hypocritical and that not only=20
were they laying the groundwork for an extensive low intensity (i.e.,=20
terrorist) war against the Zapatista communities but that they would --in=
=20
the Spring of 1995 and again in the Winter of 1997-98-- return to the=20
use of overt military force.=20
=09Nevertheless, during the long hiatus between the end of fighting=20
in January 1994 and the government's unilateral violation of cease-fire=20
accords in February of 1995 the Zapatistas had the time not only to=20
develop a spectacular political initiative, e.g., the National Democratic=
=20
Convention that brought together grassroots and political movements=20
from all over Mexico, but also to get their message out to the wider=20
world in such a way as to inspire not only solidarity but new=20
discussions and mobilizations about common concerns. =20
=09Within Mexico the circuits of communication through which the=20
Zapatista communiqu=E9s, interviews and stories circulated were largely=20
traditional ones: a spate of books and collections, a few liberal=20
newspapers and magazines, especially La Jornada and Proceso, the=20
publications of formal political parties and organizations and a wide=20
variety of informal networks in urban barrios and rural communities.=20
Within Mexico the relatively new networks of computer=20
communications played a subsidiary role, probably most importantly=20
among those Mexican groups which had mobilized in opposition to=20
NAFTA in the early 1990s and had elaborated Internet connections with=20
their counterparts in the United States and Canada. It is important to=20
remember that the Zapatistas themselves had no direct connection to the=20
Internet, nor to any other means of wider communication and relied=20
exclusively on the mediation of sympathetic individuals and=20
organizations to get their message out. =20
=09Outside of Mexico, however, the story was quite different. In=20
the extremely rapid circulation of information about the Zapatista=20
rebellion and of subsequent discussion and mobilization around the=20
world computer communications played a decisive role. Whether media=20
coverage was intense or non-existent, the Internet hummed with a=20
steady and quite impressive flow of information generated from a wide=20
variety of on-the-scene observers and distant analysts and=20
commentators. The Zapatistas' ability to produce a surprising array of=20
communiqu=E9s, letters, metaphorical stories and news bulletins provided=20
a massive counterweight to government disinformation and media=20
neglect. In moments of intensified conflict such information and=20
analysis were downloaded by the megabyte and transformed into=20
pamphlets, leaflets, newspaper articles, teach-ins, lectures and letters to=
=20
the editor, all of which gave people far from Mexico a intense sense of=20
the situation and fed local mobilizations protesting Mexican government=20
repression. Within the context of a previous widespread organized=20
opposition to NAFTA and equally widespread computer networks=20
concerned with human rights violations, indigenous struggles, and=20
women's issues, this flow of information generated an almost=20
unprecedented breath of discussion political action. =20
=09As more and more people became involved in these processes=20
they brought their computer and artistic skills to elaborate discussion=20
lists, PeaceNet conferences and an explosive proliferation of web sites. =
=20
Larger numbers also meant a greater capacity for translation from=20
Spanish into other languages and a further acceleration of the circulation=
=20
of struggle. This was by no means the first time computer=20
communications had played a key role in social struggle, but it quickly=20
became a highly effective and widely recognized one. Even the media=20
began to pick up on these hitherto largely invisible currents of=20
communication that undermined and eclipsed their monopoly of and=20
ability to limit and distort information but by providing means of almost=
=20
instantaneous interactive discussion and collaboration dramatically=20
accelerated the possibilities of long-distance organization.
=09One interesting Zapatista initiative which reached out to the=20
world using the Internet to involve others in the political debates inside=
=20
Mexico was their Call for a plebiscite on their future political orientatio=
n.=20
In an unprecedented move, that caught the government entirely off=20
guard (once again), the Zapatistas talked Allianza Civica --a pro-
democracy NGO-- into setting up thousands of polling booths in cities=20
throughout Mexico where people could vote on a series of questions=20
about the Zapatista program and methods. Participation was=20
simultaneously opened to people throughout the world through the=20
Internet which provided the means for circulating the questions and=20
gathering the answers. Over a million people participated in this=20
plebiscite in Mexico and over 81,000 people in 47 countries took part=20
through the Internet.=20
=09By early 1996, two years after the public appearance of the=20
rebellion, these cyberspacial circuits of communication had reached into=20
a wide variety of other struggles around the world. They provoked=20
such extensive discussion of Zapatista politics and proposals that when=20
the EZLN issued a Call for continental and intercontinental encounters to=
=20
exchange experiences of struggle and to compare notes of capitalist=20
policies and strategies of resistance the response far outstripped all thei=
r=20
expectations. Indeed, the Zapatista Call, which they issued with some=20
trepidation, high hopes but low expectations generated a mobilization of=20
a scope and depth that no other individual group has been able to do in=20
recent memory. Not only did thousands of people respond=20
enthusiastically to the invitation and move quickly to organize a series of=
=20
preliminary continental meetings. The organization of the European=20
meetings, the Internet played a role in circulating ideas and proposals=20
and the results of a series of face-to-face meetings. In North America,=20
with the organization of the continental encounter in the hands of the=20
Zapatistas, the Internet served mainly to circulate information about the=
=20
event and collect applications for participation. The same pattern would=20
be repeated for the Intercontinental Encounter, also held in Chiapas. =20
For security reasons registration and certification was required for these=
=20
meetings in Chiapas and was handled in each country. The Net=20
circulated information about requirements for certification and=20
communication between applicants and organizers. =20
=09Over 3,000 grassroots activists from over 40 countries gathered=20
in Chiapas in the Summer of 1996 for the Intercontinental Encounter.=20
As many expected the meeting was tumultuous, even arduous, as a wide=20
array of individuals with equally diverse backgrounds (in terms of both=20
their struggles and organizing experience) came together to attempt a=20
multi-sided, multi-lingual conversation about the state of the world and=20
how to change it. Different kinds of people working within different=20
political and theoretical perspectives shared their views on the state of=
=20
the world and their proposals for struggle. All sorts of Marxists,=20
feminists, environmentalists, indigenous organizers, social democrats,=20
and human rights activists did their best to engage each other and to find=
=20
common ground.
=09This Intercontinental encounter was remarkable not for its=20
difficulties but for achieving such a degree of coherency that virtually al=
l=20
concerned decided that they should be repeated as one vehicle for the=20
continuation of the conversations begun. Out of that meeting came the=20
decision to organize another --in Europe-- and enthusiasm for finding or=20
creating not just periodical but an on-going conversations on a global=20
scale about fighting capitalism and building alternatives. The Second=20
Intercontinental Encounter was held in Spain in late July, 1997.
=09Like the First Intercontinental the Second was largely organized=20
via the Internet coupled with a series of face-to-face meetings of various=
=20
groups in Spain. Ideas were circulated and discussed over various lists=20
and conferences. As the time of the Encounter approached web sites=20
were organized both in Spain and elsewhere in the world to carry the=20
dozens of papers prepared for the meetings to all interested parties who=20
were unable to attend. Voluntary translators multiplied these texts across=
=20
linguistic barriers and made possible a multilingual multilogue at the=20
meetings themselves. There was a quite conscious attempt to extend the=20
Encounter beyond the 4,000 who showed up in Spain by providing=20
daily reports on the Internet about the discussions being held. =20
Originally, there were hopes to create real-time interactive text and video=
=20
reporting from the Encounter but technical limitations on facilities=20
available in Spain proved insuperable. Nevertheless, textual reports=20
were generated regularly and the Italian participants proved adept at=20
returning digitized audio and photographs from the meetings to their=20
web sites. This material was not interactive but they certainly added=20
depth, color and immediacy for those who were following events from=20
afar. =20
=09In the wake of the Second Intercontinental Encounter the=20
associated web sites have maintained an archive of material to feed into=20
future discussions and a variety of post-event evaluations and=20
summations have circulated on the Internet and been added to those=20
archives. Today computer communications with their networks of lists=20
and web sites continue to provide an interactive flow of information=20
about the ongoing struggles in Chiapas as well as of discussion about=20
related struggles elsewhere. The explosion of net activity in the wake of=
=20
the December 22, 1997 massacre of 47 men, women and children in=20
Acteal, Chiapas and the widespread protests to which it has given rise is=
=20
only the latest moment of the vibrancy of this technology at an=20
international level. What we have experienced here seems to represent=20
an historically new level of organizational capability whose potentialities=
=20
we are only beginning to explore. Moreover, the legacy of these=20
meetings has been an elaboration of an ever widening network of=20
contacts and collaboration which has complemented, reinforced and=20
expanded already existing networks.
3. The Recognition of a Common Enemy=20
=09From almost the beginning of their communications with the rest=20
of the world, the Zapatistas have situated the policies of the Mexican=20
government within the wider framework of what in Latin America is=20
called Neoliberalism. By this is meant a set of policies which 1)=20
privilege the market over government regulation, 2) mandate the=20
privatization of state enterprises, 3) reduce constraints on business=20
activity through the deregulation of both industry and finance, 4) reduce=
=20
barriers to international trade and investment (both real and financial)=20
and 5) impose the costs of these changes on both waged and unwaged=20
workers through the slashing of government supports to consumption=20
and the standard of living more generally. These have been the=20
dominant policies in Mexico since the onset of the international debt=20
crisis in the early 1980s and have been deepened under the recent=20
regimes of Salinas and then Zedillo. The Zapatista rebellion and the pro-
democracy upsurge to which it added emphasis helped precipitate the=20
crisis of those policies by the end of 1994 as the flight of fearful hot=20
money brought about the Peso collapse, a $50 billion bailout and=20
renewed austerity and depression in Mexico. The Zapatista attack on=20
Neoliberal policies, both before and after the Peso Crisis, has resonated=
=20
across the Mexican body politic and forced a debate on these policies in=20
which the government has been pushed back on the defensive and=20
opposition has deepened and spread.=20
=09As their discourse on this subject has circulated around the=20
world it has also resonated in many other countries and social struggles=20
as well. The Intercontinental Encounters, mentioned above, were=20
subtitled "Against Neoliberalism and For Humanity." This provoked=20
among the organizers and participants a comparison of Neoliberalism in=20
Mexico and the rest of Latin America with Thatcherism in Britain,=20
Maastricht & Schengen in Europe, IMF structural adjustment programs=20
everywhere, Reagan - Bush - Clinton supply-side policies in the United=20
States and so on. The result has been a widely shared perception of the=20
unusually homogeneous character of capitalist policy in this period. =20
Whereas we used to be able to contrast policies of development with=20
those of underdevelopment in changing patterns of the global capitalist=20
hierarchy of wages, income and standards of living, today we find,=20
virtually everywhere a systematic attack on working class income=20
coupled with continuing restructuring to decompose class power into=20
new, more manageable configurations of capitalist accumulation.=20
=09After several years in which the politics of resistance and=20
struggle have been fragmented and weakened by certain theoretical=20
tendencies so preoccupied with the rejection of "master narratives" that=20
they blinded themselves to capitalist efforts to re-impose its own master=
=20
narrative of exploitation and alienation on the entire world, this=20
coalescence of recognition of a common enemy has provided a powerful=20
sinew to knit together widely scattered struggles. Whereas the Zapatista=
=20
demands for indigenous and women's autonomy and the rejection of=20
any singular formula for political or social organization has made their=20
struggle attractive to many so-called "post-modernists", their critique of=
=20
Neoliberalism and capitalism has linked them firmly with the Marxist=20
tradition of the revolutionary transcendence of capitalism. At the=20
Intercontinental Encounters there were many who worried that while a=20
great many participants might be willing to condemn and fight against=20
Neoliberalism --because of its particularly nasty and retrograde=20
character-- they would hesitate to embrace a rejection of capitalism tout=
=20
court. These worries proved suprisingly and encouragingly unfounded=20
and throughout the fabric of interconnections strengthened and=20
expanded through these meetings the common rejection of capitalism is=20
pervasive. =20
4. Alternatives, Plural
=09The insistence of the Zapatistas on the creation and elaboration=20
of a diverse array of alternatives to replace current capitalist institutio=
ns=20
and relationships has been both the result of a conscious rejection of the=
=20
revolutionary tradition of imagining the replacement of the current=20
despised capitalist order by another preferred one, e.g., socialism or=20
communism, and an outgrowth of their own experience with the politics=20
of diversity in Chiapas. =20
=09On the one hand, they have been critical of the way such=20
replacement has in the past and would likely in the future only invert the=
=20
structures of class power, e.g., the substitution of the dictatorship of th=
e=20
proletariat for the dictatorship of capital, and maintain rather than do=20
away with the very class structures that need to be abolished. Thus,=20
their refusal, mentioned above, of a politics of the seizure of power.=20
=09On the other hand, the experience of their communities, out of=20
which their politics have emerged has been that it is not only possible=20
but highly desirable to eschew the generalized imposition of common=20
rules in favor of a much richer diversity of cultures and ways of=20
organizing and settling local affairs. That this is not a simple-minded=20
withdrawal into localism can be seen in the willingness and abilities of=20
these communities to collaborate with each other locally, regionally,=20
nationally and even with others internationally. The EZLN itself was=20
created by the communities as a collective project and its leadership is=20
made up of people from many different ethnic, cultural and linguistic=20
groups. Over the last four years the indigenous Zapatista communities=20
have reached out across Mexico and helped weave hundreds of distinct=20
groups into a linked web called the National Indigenous Congress. This=20
organization of collaboration has no permanent institutional form, no=20
central committee or steering group but a multitude of connections=20
among autonomous =B3knots=B2 which from time to time coalesce into=20
assemblies for specific purposes. A key subset of these =B3knots=B2 are now=
=20
linked via computer. The Zapatistas have also provided key support for=20
the formation of the Zapatista National Liberation Front that was=20
formally inaugurated in Mexico City in September of 1997 and involves=20
not only indigenous communities but a wide variety of grassroots=20
movements both rural and urban. Once again, the object has not been=20
the construction of a unified program or formal organization but the=20
acceleration of the circulation of struggle and mutual aid.=20
=09This insistence on the revolutionary project being a rupture of=20
uniform rules has challenged the traditional rigid structures of Western=20
constitutional states and offered the alternative of working out a more=20
multidimensional politics across a greater array of social practices. =20
While the Zapatista communities have considerable experience with such=20
politics they have refused to recommend their own solutions to others. =20
Instead they have pointed to the intolerability of current capitalist=20
structures and called for others to apply their own imagination and=20
creativity to the invention of other solutions. This open-ended proposal=
=20
has stimulated widespread discussion and debate within Mexico and=20
elsewhere. The guardians of the present order have rejected it out of=20
hand evoking fears of chaos and the collapse of civilization. Those=20
wedded to traditional notions of creating a socialist or communist=20
system to replace the present one have also reacted with disdain and=20
evoked similar fears. A common reference has been the collapse of what=20
was once Yugoslavia into civil war, ethnic cleansing and barbarism. =20
But others, disabused with both the current system and old alternatives,=20
have been fascinated by the effectiveness of the self-organization of the=
=20
Zapatista movement and its ability to build and elaborate a variety of=20
political linkages across vast differences in culture, tradition and=20
language. Even if that experience cannot be duplicated elsewhere, due to=20
different traditions and practices, it at least suggests that the invention=
of=20
new ways of doing politics is possible and on more than a local scale. =20
Thus the inspiration which many around the world have found in the=20
Zapatista movement. =20
=09
=09One part of the world where this apparently esoteric indigenous=20
movement from the margins has resonated most strongly has been, of=20
all places, Western Europe. But while some have smelled a kind of=20
desperate return to the Third Worldism of an earlier era, there are good=20
reasons for suspecting a much more profound source: a surprising=20
convergence not only of resistance to capitalist policy but a growing=20
tendency to discover new forms of political practice that resemble, in=20
general terms, those in Chiapas. Nowhere does this seem to be more=20
pronounced than in Italy. In both 1996 and 1997 one of the largest and=20
most enthusiastic collection of people to participate in the=20
Intercontinental Encounters were Italian. In a recent survey of pro-
Zapatista demonstrations in the wake of the Acteal massacre, a=20
disproportionate number of actions and people took place in the streets=20
of Italy.
=09If we investigate the sources of this connection, of the=20
sympathetic response of young Italian militants to both the Zapatistas=20
and the struggles they have influenced, we discover some interesting=20
parallels. First, at the level of political practice, the cutting edge of=
=20
Italian social struggles have embraced a refusal of representative politica=
l=20
forms similar to that of the Zapatistas and, at the same time, elaborated a=
=20
multiplicity of autonomous struggles such as the squatted youth centers=20
that have been created throughout Italy. These centers, in turn, are often=
=20
linked to each other through the European Counter-Network of=20
controinformazione which has played a vital role in circulating not only=20
information about the struggles in Mexico and Italy, but those=20
throughout Europe. Many of those who came to Chiapas or Spain for=20
the Intercontinental Encounters also participated, or had friends who=20
participated in the European-wide demonstration against unemployment=20
and Maastricht in Amsterdam. Over 3,000 militants in Italy demanded=20
free trains for transportation to that demonstration and got them --much=20
to the annoyance of the Swiss, German and Dutch governments. When=20
the police of those countries harassed the Italian protesters, they used=20
cellular phones, the ECN and the network of free radios to mobilize=20
immediate support throughout Italy. A few days ago, on January 14,=20
1998 another free train was apparently obtained to transport thousands=20
of demonstrators from all over Italy to a nation-wide demonstration for=20
Chiapas and against the Acteal massacre in Rome. We thus see the=20
circulation of ideas, people and methods of struggle between Chiapas,=20
Italy and the rest of Europe.
=09At the level of theory, some recent expressions of militant Italian=20
thought bare an uncanny resemblance to Zapatista ways of thinking=20
about revolution and the displacement-eclipse of state power. In this=20
regard I will only mention one revealing collection of materials: Radical=
=20
Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics, edited by Paolo Vierno and Michel=
=20
Hardt. Although the language and formulations differ markedly from=20
those of the Zapatistas, there are many striking parallels. =20
=09The Italians may speak of self-valorization and constituent=20
power instead of indigenous autonomy and the power of self-
determination but the ideas are homologous. The Italians, coming from=20
a Marxist tradition may ground their appreciation of the power of a=20
proliferating multitude of alternatives in the spread of so-called=20
=B3immaterial labor=B2 and =B3mass intellectuality=B2, whereas the Zapatist=
as=20
may spin tales that draw from both mass culture and indigenous=20
mythology but both have grasped the power potential of imagination and=20
creative energy freeing itself from the bonds of subordination to capital. =
=20
Where the Italians discover an exodus from alienations of capitalist=20
work in favor of new spaces of self-valorization, the Zapatistas speak of=
=20
the struggle for land as a means to avoid the brutalities of waged labor=20
on cattle ranches and coffee plantations and as a means to the further=20
elaborations of new communal practices and politics. I could continue=20
drawing parallels between the two bodies of thought but I think that I=B9ve=
=20
said enough to suggest why the resonance of Zapatista struggles in Italy=20
and perhaps elsewhere in Europe may not be grounded in simply=20
solidarity but rather in experiences of struggle and reflection which=20
despite their differences still embody many common elements that are=20
rooted in both the globality of capitalist exploitation and the struggle=20
against it. To the degree that this is so, the rapid circulation of the=20
Zapatista resistance to Neoliberalism and its positive projects of social=
=20
transformation must be seen as being of potentially much greater import=20
than we have already observed.
5. The Encounters: Energy and Difficulties
=09From this perspective the unexpected enthusiasm of thousands=20
of activists from dozens of countries to trek into the jungles of Chiapas=
=20
in 1996, or to cope with the expense and difficulties of traveling to=20
several different, widely separated towns in Spain in 1997, and the=20
ongoing energies for the elaboration of intercontinental circuits of=20
communication and struggle can be seen to derive not only from shared=20
perceptions of new possibilities for join action against a common=20
enemy, but from a spreading understanding that Zapatista politics are=20
not entirely unique but perhaps symptomatic of those directions of class=20
struggle that hold the greatest potential in this period.=20
=09The Zapatista proposal of these Encounters grew out of their=20
own practice in Chiapas. One of an array of interrelated institutions of=
=20
community consultation and decision making, the gathering together of=20
most of those from a village or from many villages in a setting where all=
=20
voices can be heard and issues decided upon is central to the Zapatista=20
politics. A first experiment with the usefulness of this process on a=20
much larger scale were the meetings of the National Democractic=20
Convention --that brought together thousands of activists in Mexico. =20
The Continental and Intercontinental Encounters were another. In both=20
cases the experiments were exciting and productive but also difficult and=
=20
fraught with problems.=20
=09The most obvious problem with this extension to a world scale=20
of this form of doing politics is the difficulty of gaining experience and=
=20
learning how to do it. In the Zapatista communities this way of doing=20
things has been going on for years over and over again so that the=20
participants are familiar and practiced with the way things go. Even=20
when multiple communities with different cultural practices and=20
languages are involved, a whole set of modalities have been worked=20
out, are familiar and contribute to making the gatherings a vibrant part of=
=20
political life. In the case of the Intercontinental Encounters, because the=
y=20
can happen at best only once a year, gaining experience and working out=20
effective methods is much more problematic, as we will see. It is one=20
thing for academics to gather from time to time to exchange a few ideas=20
and then disperse with no collective follow-up, it is quite another to=20
construct an on-going productive political process.
=09The First Intercontinental Encounter was certainly colored by the=20
moral and political aura of the Zapatista movement. Organized in five=20
different campesino communities in various parts of Chiapas, the=20
thousands of participants moved from place to place under the very=20
noses of the Mexican police and Army. In this dramatic defiance of=20
those forces, the Zapatistas carried out a virtual military operation,=20
demonstrating to the state and to the world that neither they nor their=20
friends could be isolated or immobilized through repression. In each of=20
the five sites participants discovered that the community had crafted, out=
=20
of local and donated materials, sufficient infrastructure to host hundreds=
=20
of outsiders, providing places to sleep, to bathe, to eat, to gather for=20
roundtable and plenary discussion during the days and for music and=20
dancing at night. They discovered rows of porcelain latrines and=20
libraries with shelves of books and electrical outlets for computers and=20
printers. The participants also discovered that these spaces had been=20
created for them to engage each other, with only marginal participation=20
from the Zapatistas themselves. They framed and hosted the meetings=20
but besides the welcoming and closing plenary speeches and the=20
beginning and end of the week of work, they participated very little in=20
the week of discussions.
=09In workshop session after session papers were presented and=20
discussion and debate swirled in several languages and translators=20
struggled to keep up and to make the arguments and points intelligible to=
=20
those who couldn=B9t understand the speakers=B9 languages. People were=20
coming together from widely different backgrounds and practices with=20
very different conceptual frameworks and was of expressing them so=20
that the =B3cross-language=B2 problem was multiplied on several levels. =20
Nevertheless, a week-long struggle for dialogue and understanding=20
went on day and night, often in the rain and deepening mud, broken=20
only by meals, music, dancing and sleep. Under the quiet and dignified=20
eyes of the people of the Zapatista communities, desires for=20
understanding almost always won out over impatience traditional=20
prejudices, at least to the degree that there were few truly hostile=20
moments and an amazing degree of good will and patience. As the=20
discussions drew to a close the participants managed to draw up=20
documents that would reflect the complexity of the perspectives and=20
opinions that had come together.
=09The 1997 Intercontinental Encounter in Spain replicated in many=20
ways the experience of the first but in an entirely different context. =20
Instead of the unifying backdrop of the Zapatista communities, the=20
organization of the Second Encounter emerged out of the conflicts and=20
negotiations among various political groups in Spain. The distribution=20
of workshops over several cities in part reproduced what the Zapatistas=20
had done, but with a different rationale. Instead of a defiant military=20
operation, the dispersion in Spain seemed aimed primarily at satisfying=20
diverse and competing local claims for significant political roles. In=20
other words, the organization of the Second Encounter and many of the=20
difficulties that arose reflected the much less mature state of cross=20
struggle networking in Spain as opposed to that in Chiapas. Whereas in=20
Chiapas old sectarian prejudices and ideological tensions were muted in=20
the presence of a highly respected population of people in struggle --a=20
people whose own ideas could not be fit into any familiar ideological=20
category-- in Spain such old prejudices and tensions rose to the surface=20
much more quickly and frequently. Nevertheless, once more=20
thousands gathered, discussed, debated and sought to build linkages=20
across previous gulfs and to replace silences or harsh words with=20
productive political dialogue. That neither the meetings not ex-post=20
assessments dissolved into sectarian diatribes and condemnations=20
testified to the presence of a new spirit of cooperation and collaboration.
=09As mentioned above in the context of sketching the role of the=20
Internet, the organization and unfolding of the Second Encounter made=20
much greater use of e-mail and web sites than the First. Not only were=20
a very large number of papers made available on the web --and=20
sometimes circulated in e-mail discussion lists-- ahead of time, but this=
=20
made possible some discussion even before the conference began. =20
However, in part because of the absence of such means the previous=20
year, most of the papers and documents which had been presented at the=20
first Encounter were NOT available as background to the Second --
despite repeated suggestions that discussions in the Second should build=20
upon those of the First. There were a few exceptions, such as the=20
publication in Italy of a translated collection of papers from the previous=
=20
year, but for the most part participants to the Second Encounter arrived=20
without benefit of familiarity with earlier discussions. The result was=20
much more repetition and less progress than many had hoped. Many=20
who had attended the First Encounter had been impressed with the=20
consensus both about the nature of Neoliberalism and the willingness to=20
identify the common enemy as capitalism and not just one of its forms. =20
They therefore hoped that in the Second Encounter less time and energy=20
would go into discussions of those issues and more into the sharing of=20
experience of struggle and attempts to design more coherent networks of=20
communication and struggle. While there was some progress in this area=20
it was far less than many had expected because so many of the old=20
discussions had to be repeated among new participants who had not=20
attended the first and had had no opportunity to familiarize themselves=20
with what had happened then.=20
=09Although the Intercontinental Encounters were by no means=20
academic affairs --there were certainly some people from universities but=
=20
also lots of other kind of grassroots activists-- the formal workshops all=
=20
too closely resembled typical academic gatherings. The presentation of=20
papers --even when they had been available ahead of time-- took far too=20
much time and although there was much more time for discussion and=20
debate than is common in academia, it was still too small a percentage of=
=20
the total for a great many people=B9s tastes. Similarly, there were the=20
language problems familiar to academic and political gatherings across=20
borders and neither in the villages of Chiapas nor in the cities in Spain=
=20
was there adequate provision for simultaneous translation to overcome=20
this barrier in a satisfactory manner. In both sites same language=20
individuals often sat clustered around one grossly overworked translator=20
who struggled to keep up, often with little relief. The efforts were=20
valiant and much appreciated but the deficiencies of the situation was a=20
major obstacle to a clear circulation of ideas and debate. In Chiapaneca=
=20
villages where provision for high tech multichannel earphones and=20
teams of translators was hardly imaginable, this obstacle was annoying=20
but understandable. In Spain where such technology certainly exists, its=20
absence was less well received.=20
=09On the other hand, there was some progress in the Second=20
Encounter in the thematic organization of the workshops. The Zapatista=20
organization in Chiapas had corresponded to some of their own=20
categories of organizing discussion: economic, political, cultural, social,=
=20
and indigenous. But during the First Encounter and during the=20
organization of the Second there was considerable discussion about=20
alternative ways to regoup discussion. The thematic organization=20
became: =B3the neoliberal economy,=B2 =B3our world and theirs,=B2 =B3strugg=
les=20
for culture, education and information,=B2 =B3the struggle against=20
patriarchy,=B2 =B3struggles for land and the Earth,=B2 and =B3against all f=
orms of=20
marginalization.=B2 It was generally recognized, however, that the=20
appropriate categorizations would evolve over time and the willingness=20
to embrace that evolution and see the process of organization as an=20
endless, ever renewed process was encouraging.=20
=09Once again as the Encounter drew to a close, great efforts were=20
made to draw up summaries of discussions and exchanged experiences=20
not so much to issue some formal declarations but to document the=20
progress made and the directions of movement to facilitate further=20
advances in the future. There was considerable discussion about the=20
desirability of organizing a Third Encounter but no decision was reached=20
and that project is still under discussion, both within groups and among=20
them through the Internet. =20
=09To summarize these experiences, let me just say a couple of=20
things. On the one hand, they reflected a new desire for organization at=
=20
a world level and they also demonstrated a new capacity to actually=20
achieve such organization. They brought together a tremendous amount=20
of activist energy for struggle and these comings-together generated=20
more energy than they absorbed. Most people seem to have come away=20
from them enthusiastic and fired up for future efforts. On the other=20
hand, they also embodied only partial solutions to many of the obstacles=20
which still impede the acceleration of the formation of ever more=20
effective circuits of struggle capable of subverting and substituting for=
=20
capitalist initiatives and programs. Old obstacles such as different=20
languages, modes of expression and practices of interaction persist=20
while new obstacles such as finding complementary and mutually=20
reinforcing modes of action among quite diverse struggles challenge=20
those who have set aside the old, simplistic solutions that they now=20
know have not, and cannot work, e.g., =B3join the party and smash the=20
state=B2. In as much as the Encounters grew out of ongoing processes of=20
networking and discussion, no one expected them to generate some kind=20
of collective singular solution, and discussion continues the best use of=
=20
such periodical large-scale meetings and their relatonship to other means=
=20
of collaboration.
6. Difficulties in Cyberspace
=09As described in point two above, cyberspaces have been created=20
as extremely important terrains for the rapid circulation of information,=
=20
discussion and effective cooperation. Those who are plugged into the=20
flows are far better informed than those who are not. Those who=20
participate have access to and are able to dialogue with a much greater=20
array of individuals and groups than they could ever do locally. In=20
moments of crisis and mobilization, such as January and February=20
1994, February and March 1995 and again in December and January of=20
1997 - 1998, the rapid exchange of information, ideas and experience of=20
struggle, the coordination of methods and timing of protests, the=20
mobilization of observers and material aid and the coordinated=20
counterattack against the Mexican government the Internet has made=20
possible a quickness and effectiveness of organization across dozens of=20
countries and regions of the world almost unprecedented in human=20
experience. Furthermore, the interpenetration through the Internet of the=
=20
Zapatista struggle with those elsewhere, both in Mexico and around the=20
world, has contributed not only to an acceleration in the circulation of=20
struggle, but to increased complementarity among struggles and ways of=20
thinking about them. All this has been inspiring and demonstrated the=20
absolute necessity of pushing forward in the exploration and elaboration=20
of these new circuits of communication and cooperation among peoples.=20
=09On the other hand, this experience has also highlighted some=20
serious difficulties. The best that we can hope is that by clearly=20
perceiving the difficulties we have a better chance to overcome them.=20
=09First, the rapid elaboration of cyberspaces devoted to keeping=20
track of and circulating information about the struggles in Chiapas and=20
the pro-democracy movement in Mexico have grown to include all=20
related activities around the world. The flow of information simply=20
from within Chiapas is heavy and when you add in all the rest, as we=20
have done, the flow is huge. Even on the filtered Chiapas95 list the=20
number of e-mail messages with related information ranges from an=20
average of 20 to 70 messages a day, and even more in periods of crisis.=20
Even for activists who want to keep track of events and know what all is=20
being done to support the struggle that is an enormous amount of=20
information, in several different languages. As a result there is now a=20
Chiapas95-lite and a Chiapas95-english for those who just can=B9t handle=20
the flow and get tired of deleting all the stuff they don=B9t have time to=
=20
read and process. =20
=09With the growth of interconnections among struggles and the=20
search for mutual understanding and complementary action the practice=20
of cross-posting material from different struggles has spread. In the case=
=20
of the Chiapas lists, I am not just talking about say, stories from=20
Guerrero or those of demonstrations in Italy, but material from efforts=20
like the one to save the life of Ken Saro-Wiwa, spokesperson for the=20
Ogoni people in Southern Nigeria. During that campaign --which failed=20
unfortunately-- material from the African lists were cross posted to the=20
Chiapas lists and material from the Chiapas lists cross posted to the=20
African lists. The intent was not only to gain names and signatures on=20
protest petitions, boycotts, etc. but to compare and understand the=20
similarities between the struggles in Southern Nigeria and those in=20
Southern Mexico. There have been any number of such=20
interpenetrations and linkages between cyberspacial circuits. This kind=20
of phenomenon was only multiplied by the Intercontinental Encounters=20
which brought diverse people from many different struggles together=20
where they got to know each other and discovered how they might=20
interlink. It is now possible to imagine, given the exponential growth in=
=20
the Net and the rapid spread of its use by groups in struggle, that before=
=20
long we may have access to detailed information about most struggles=20
on Earth and the possibility of building linkages among them all. The=20
implications are both gratifying and sobering.
=09While the possibility of having access to such a rich array of=20
material and ready access to the means of linking struggles would seem=20
to hold enormous potential for building networks capable of=20
transforming world history, already the flow of information has grown=20
so large as to threaten instead to overwhelm and paralyze activists. It is=
=20
too much for anyone to absorb. Future development will only add to=20
this problem. Yet we must find a way to cope with this situation if we=20
are to realize the potential latent within it.=20
=09This problem is a familiar one to capitalist policy makers, if not=20
to grassroots activists. Because their job is to manage class relationships=
=20
all over the world, the policy makers of the US State Department, or=20
those of the World Bank or International Monetary Fund have created=20
huge bureaucracies and networks of scholars and analysts to not only=20
gather information but to sort, sift and distill it into manageable=20
quantities. Such is the role of individual researchers in universities,=20
teams at various country desks at the State Department and sub-units of=20
specialists at the Bank or the Fund. They carry out their work within a=20
highly refined division of labor which has been constructed and framed=20
by the policy concerns of those at the top. Unlike activists involved in=
=20
struggle, these specialists don't have to do anything except generate=20
information and process. Their superiors will take what they have done,=20
boil it down, synthesize it and hand it over to the decision makers. That=
=20
small elite will survey the overall picture that emerges from the=20
syntheses and make judgments about policies. If they have doubts about=20
the briefs they are handled they have the power and channels of=20
communication to tap the raw data and re-evaluate the analysis drawn=20
from it. In the most efficient situations they will have an educated=20
overview of a complex array of situations and will take action based on=20
it.
=09This top-down, hierarchical system, however, is clearly=20
inappropriate to any kind of democratic, non-elite network of decision=20
making. On the one hand, the cogs in this machine accept their=20
subordination to the whole, the outside definition of their roles and their=
=20
exclusion from policy making only in return for the kinds of income and=20
status which no contemporary social movement or network of=20
movements have to offer. On the other hand, the very structure is anti-
thetical to our aspirations to democracy and we would have no business=20
replicating it even if we could afford to. So, what to do?
=09Perhaps we might approach the problem by contemplating our=20
own needs and limitations.
=09First, our needs. In order to confront capitalist globalization, we=20
do need something homologous to what capitalist policy makers need:=20
an overall grasp of the pattern of development of lines of force and=20
directions of movement, a clear assessment of our own strengths and=20
weaknesses and those of the enemy. But we need this for all of us, not=20
just for an elite, if we are to construct truly democratic patterns of=20
interaction and decision making. Like the current elite we also need to=20
be able to reach behind syntheses to the materials on which they are=20
based when we doubt their formulations or conclusions. Because we=20
are also, all of us, engaged in particular concrete struggles and=20
intersections of struggles, we also need to be able to generate reports=20
from our own experience and to use that experience to evaluate and=20
critique others' analyses and propose alternatives. We need, therefore,=20
to be able to participate freely and effectively in both the production and=
=20
consumption of information, or, better, to be able to both speak and=20
listen effectively. =20
=09These are neither small, nor simple things. We bring to=20
cyberspace our habits acquired in other spaces and many of those have=20
been counterproductive and continue to be so in this new terrain. =20
Personality conflicts, arrogance, sexism, racism and all the other=20
behavior patterns that have tortured or destroyed other kinds of political=
=20
efforts have been reproduced on the "Net". Few are the activists who=20
have not abandoned a discussion or unsubscribed from a list or avoided=20
returning to newsgroup because of flame-wars, unbridled antagonisms=20
or endless dialogues of the deaf. The history of struggles to develop=20
generally accepted rules of "netiquette" shows the difficulties involved.=
=20
Cyberspace is no privileged arena. All of the problems and battles we=20
are familiar with elsewhere reappear there in all too familiar forms and=20
constitute the first set of limitations to our ability to get our needs met=
=2E
=09Other limitations. Clearly we cannot as individuals be=20
simultaneously engaged in a multiplicity of concrete struggles that take=20
different forms with different contents. Anyone with activist experience=20
in cyberspace is familiar with the frustrations of being confronted not=20
only with detailed reports but also with urgent pleas for action on the=20
part of those in struggles and situations that we know little or nothing=20
about and feel incapable of evaluating. As successful mobilizations like=
=20
those around the Zapatistas have demonstrated the potentialities of such=20
efforts and as those in other struggles come on line, the barrage and the=
=20
frustration can only mount. While we need to act in ways which are=20
effective on a wider scale, we know that we can only be truly well=20
informed about a limited range of experience.
=09On the other hand, needing to develop strategies and tactics that=20
are complementary to struggles elsewhere, and that we judge can=20
contribute the most effectively to advancing the overall movement, we=20
need to situate ourselves within broader patterns which we can only do=20
by confronting and contributing to the processes of synthesis, overview=20
and contemplation of what the military calls "Grand Strategies" being=20
wielded both from the bottom up and from the top down. Now, I know=20
from experience that different people will spend different amounts of=20
time and energy in these two different kinds of study and creative=20
thinking. Some will spend a lot of time grappling with the large picture,=
=20
others will spend a lot less, and focus their energy on the struggles in=20
which they are most intimately engaged. I don't see this as a problem,=20
as long as all flows of information and intersections of analysis and=20
debate are transparent and easily accessible. In corridors of power, this=
=20
is not the case. The higher you go the more and more access is restricted=
=20
to "need to know" and data, reports, and summaries are "classified",=20
"restricted" and "top secret". This secrecy is dictated by the structure o=
f=20
power and its exclusivity. Even when you move out of such restricted=20
domains, it is often the case that access to the conversations of the elite=
=20
is restricted by the high prices of books, of subscriptions to elite=20
journals, and of admission to the spaces of elite discussion. Our need=20
for transparency is dictated by our refusal of such configurations of=20
politics that are based on the desire of the few to control the many. The=
=20
free flow of information on the Internet makes such transparency more=20
possible than ever before. As more and more relevant material takes=20
digital form and is archived in cyberspace, the easier it is to trace and=
=20
cross-check data and references. For academics accustomed to the long=20
and painful process of reconstituting the evolution of interacting ideas=20
and verifying information, the advent of hypertext papers where a click=20
of the mouse can take you directly from a footnote to the referenced=20
document or piece of data dramatically simplifies such processes. =20
Exactly such interlinkages give everyone with access to the Web such=20
facility.
=09Which raises another much discussed limitation of the role of=20
cyberspace in the elaboration of struggles and the interlinking of=20
struggles: the fact that not everyone has immediate access to that space.=
=20
Its population is a very small subset of all of those engaged in struggle. =
=20
From=20the perspective of those spheres of struggle with extremely high=20
computer-population ratios, the existence of other areas of the world=20
with very low ratios looks like a major obstacle to generalized=20
participation in this dimension of political mobilization. Those=20
preoccupied with this limitation have taken some heart from the=20
extremely rapid spread of the "Net", even into sectors of society=20
traditionally deprived of effective means of communication. The very=20
rapid spread of computer networks among Native Americans, for=20
example, has proceeded much faster than anyone expected, even in=20
rural, isolated areas. On the other hand one has only to look South,=20
towards Africa say, to see that vast areas not only lack any kind of=20
Internet backbone, but even telephone lines through which computer=20
communications could be established if the computers were available.
=09However, the experience of Chiapas and of the Zapatista=20
communities in particular suggest that thinking about this problem in=20
terms of computers and modems per capita is often quite inappropriate. =20
As mentioned above in point two, neither the EZLN nor any of the=20
Zapatista villages in Chiapas are directly connected to the Net. Their=20
connections have always been mediated, at first through journalists,=20
then through NGOs and today through groups like the FZLN or Enlace=20
Civil. Yet we have seen how they have not only learned to use the Net=20
despite this handicap but to use it extremely effectively. Today, this=20
experience has led many of the Zapatista communities to want to be tied=20
directly into the Net, but not through a computer in each home. What=20
they have in mind is a computer in each village or town through which=20
the community can collectively participate interactively with each other=20
and with the larger world. Therefore, although major obstacles remain=20
to the realization of this goal, it does suggest that the common=20
comparison of computer per capita data dramatically overstates the=20
problem of accessibility.=20
=09To conclude. Recognizing such needs and limitations --and=20
there are surely a great many others-- is one thing. Finding effective=20
ways to meet the needs within the constraints of the limitations or to find=
=20
ways around the limitations is quite another. Within the evolution of the=
=20
Internet dimension of the Zapatista struggle --as well as in others-- we=20
can see a slow painful process of tatonnement as we have groped both=20
toward better understanding of our needs and more and more effective=20
methods of meeting them. It is very much an ongoing process. For all=20
of the difficulties, I must admit that I am basically optimistic. Partly t=
his=20
comes from studying the anxious efforts of the state to cope with what=20
we have been able to accomplish so far. While capital, in both corporate=
=20
and governmental forms, has plenty of money and therefore easy access=20
to equipment and skilled manpower the fact of the matter is, as far as I=20
have been able to see, we are still way out in front. We have more=20
experience, a vast network of expertise and far better ideas about=20
elaborating this electronic dimension of our political struggles than it=20
does. We can not rest on our laurels, but we can certainly draw courage=20
from what we have accomplished and the directions in which we are=20
moving.=20
Harry Cleaver
Austin, Texas
February, 1998 =20
(hmcleave@eco.utexas.edu)
=09
Zaps & Int'l Circulation of Struggle (Rough Draft)=09=09 / /=20
Harry Cleaver
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1173 USA
Phone Numbers: (hm) (512) 478-8427
(off) (512) 475-8535 Fax:(512) 471-3510
E-mail: hmcleave@eco.utexas.edu
Cleaver homepage:=20
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index.html
Chiapas95 homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html
Accion Zapatista homepage:
http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/
=2E........................................................................=
=2E..
Display software:
ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005