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..

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005