From: Mneillft-AT-aol.com
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:17:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: reply to Hugo A's comments on my paper



--PART.BOUNDARY.0.19378.emout07.mail.aol.com.859216641
Content-ID: <0_19378_859216641-AT-emout07.mail.aol.com.2424>

All: My response and further discussion of issues raised by Hugo Aboites in
response to my paper is attached. Monty Neill <mneillft-AT-aol.com>




--PART.BOUNDARY.0.19378.emout07.mail.aol.com.859216641
Content-ID: <0_19378_859216641-AT-emout07.mail.aol.com.2425>
	name="STRAT-HA.R2A"

Hi Hugo.  Thanks again for your comments -- yes, better late than never, and I should have
made sure you got a clean copy much earlier, it would have helped me to have your
insightful and probing comments earlier.  Still, I will do what I can with them.  A few
thoughts in response to yours.
=0D
I think the essential point you make is that the way in which I focus on racism, etc., the
obstacles within the class, becomes itself a potential obstacle by focusing first on problems
that are defined abstractly (as an abstraction out of a variety of historically concrete
experiences over an extended period of time), rather than building out of the concrete (e.g.,
the zapatista experience).  For now I cannot restructure the paper, even though you have a
valuable point. This is partly for time reasons, partly because without a new range of work
and discussion I don't think I could write the paper building on their experience as I do not
know enough of the real details.  
=0D
That said, the conclusion we've reached is that divisions in the class act in multiple ways to
prevent the class from overcoming the capitalist social-economic relationship. We do not
claim that we have an exhaustive list, that they are everywhere the same in practice.  You are
correct that we think the battle within the class and against capital must be simultaneous as
they reinforce each other, are completely intertwined.  I think you are also correct when you
state "the main problem of strategy: how to create widening zones of agreement within the
class itself" (perhaps I'd phrase it differently) and that focusing on obstacles can prevent
thinking about how to build the agreements. The reverse -- without dealing with the obstacles,
the agreements will collapse/be overcome by capital -- is what the section of the paper
focuses on. As you say, here I think we do not disagree, but the emphasis caused by the
structure of the paper does need to be addressed.  I think what to do is to add some
discussion of exactly this point, both at the end of the section and again at the end of the
paper, and I will think more on how to do that. 
=0D
Analyzing movements/struggles in terms of how they develop, interact with obstacles, do or
do not overcome them, do or do not build wider and deeper "agreements" within the class,
and learning from those struggles, is essential. I don't know if you've seen any of the writings
of "Dave Graham" on the dockers struggles in Liverpool, but they are an example of that sort
of effort.  The example is very sectoral (dock workers), but still valuable.  Unfortunately, I
think we have few of those kinds of analyses and we need a lot more. (As I said, I do not
know enough to do such work regarding the zapatistas; perhaps good efforts of this sort exist
in Spanish --??).  This work could be a useful contribution toward expanding the connections
at many "levels' (local, intercontinental). I hope the second encuentro facilitates some such
discussions that will at least lead toward more such efforts.  I think our class can learn a lot
by doing this sort of work.
=0D
That leads to your suggestion that "the focus should be on the need and shape that such
agreements (within the class) can take and how to achieve them." The analyses should serve
that end, finding areas of agreement.  In this, perhaps the section of our paper on strategy can
serve as a warning: failure to address divisions in the class and overcome those divisions
sows seeds of future defeat. 
=0D
I an not sure I agree with you on nationalism. Maybe it will be OK to simply see nationalism
as a "condition that has to be taken into account for reaching those agreements."  But I think
it is a more serious problem than that in that it tends toward being a problem in developing
agreements and unities, that nations and nationalism are obstacles -- but I do think they are
different in the extent to which they are obstacles and how they act as obstacles. This we
addressed in the remarks to the Greek comrades who saw on the reactionary side to zapatista
nationalism, wheras we think it is more complex than that. For myself, I think it is a less
serious obstacle than sexism or racism or than the wage/income/wealth hierarchies in the
class, and it is less serious because it is qualitatively different than those divisions. 
=0D
You note the Zapatista objective may be to redefine the relations of an entire region of the
national economy -- but increasingly there is no such thing as a "national economy" and the
zapatistas are not likely to have long-term, fundamental success in just a region unless much
else is happening not only in Mexico but over a much wider area. Acting as though success
can be attained simply in a region or nation and sustained independently of changes elsewhere
repeats the mistake of the idea of revolution in one country. 
=0D
The idea of wider agreements within the working class seems sound, but you describe it as at
widening levels on a geographic basis, from local out (p.m. does this in 'bolo'bolo). This
makes sense, but I think our struggles are likely to proceed more complexly, including
agreements between 'locals' that are not geographically close.  To some extent, that is what
"solidarity movements" are, though often in limited ways. 
=0D
You note that as the zapatistas considered what it would take to win, they had to think about
restructuring relations, e.g., between women and men. Perhaps this is what happened
(probably it is). And you add that considering the obstacles we say should be considered may
give "a different direction to the struggle."  But your formulation strikes me as problematic
(though you also say that removing the obstacle may be determinant).  For example, I read
the other day a comment that the revised zapatista women's law is a step backward, is more
conservative than the first women's law, and this was explained as occuring because the
zapatistas are on the defensive and consolidating their social base.  If this is true (I do not
know), it means that they have concluded that challenging men's power over women has to
wait till some later point, most likely because challenging men can reduce the men's support
for the zapatistas.  This happens all the time in struggles.  And even if one can tactically
justify it, I think it will sow the basis for later problems and failures in the struggle -- that is
the sort of point we are trying to make with the section of the paper. The point is not to
"blame" the zapatistas; perhaps better to "blame" sectors of the world working class who have
not been so resolute in struggle against global capital which props up the PRI regime and
which therefore forces the zapatistas to think they must make such self-undermining choices.
But then this suggests again the limitation of the argument in the paper, its abstract and
summary nature -- the solutions to such problems cannot be developed except concretely
through the struggle.
=0D
Well, enough for now.  I will continue to think on this as I/we finish up the paper. Thanks for
pushing us, and be well.  Monty
--PART.BOUNDARY.0.19378.emout07.mail.aol.com.859216641--





     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---