Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:02:51 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: AUT: Identity, Zapatismo, Reeve


Harry M. Cleaver wrote:

[...]

>Having read virtually all the Zapatista communiques I know that most of
>them are absolutely clear and easy to understand (aside some cultural
>referents particular to Mexico). The only ones that are ambiguous are
>those which are poetic, story-telling, such as the Tales of Durito or Old
>Antonio. So why this assertion of yours ....?

I was just stating my impression. At the risk of sounding hopelessly
unsophisticated, I really can't make head nor tail of anything Marcos says.

>> it is an understandable strategy to avoid being classified, but I am
>> tempted to put such people into the "trying to be all things to all people"
>> category, rather than the "not trying to be anything to anyone" category.
>>
>
>Bill: The statements designed "to avoid being classified" are among the
>clearest, least subject to misinterpretation --such as the repeated
>affirmation that they are not a traditional movement out to "seize power"
>in the usual sense, or their explicit critique of formal electoral
>politics which make clear they are no social democrats either.

A bit like Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." eh?

What the fuck DID you do, you bastard?
>
>> My reasoning is that if you don't want to be anything to anyone, you would
>> not feel the need to issue a communique in the first place.
>
>Bill: This is another one of the statements which mystifies me. No one
>could believe what you wrote here, so why did you write it?

You underestimate my credulity.

> It is obvious
>that communiques are written to break the silence withwhich the state
>tries to surround them so they can be destroyed. They would be doing this
>--as the EPR has done-- even if they were a traditional Maoist guerrilla
>force.

Yes, I understand that, I am not implying they are maoists.
>
>> Nothing wrong
>> with that, so long as you don't try to be all things to all men under false
>> pretenses, that is by implying you are something you are not. Or even by
>> not telling us what you are.
>>
>
>Bill: I'd like some evidence of this hypocrisy that you imply obtains
>with the Zapatistas. Show us the passages from their communiques which are
>in contradiction with their actions --and give us the particular actions
>which which they are in contradiction as well.

I confess I cannot. In fact the whole point is that their communiques are
so vague that it is hard to imagine what action could conceivable
contradict them.

>Also, I'd like some
>evidence that they try to be all things to all people.

My only evidence is the vague nature of their politics. If you don't accept
that evidence then you will not accept the reasoning which leads to such a
conclusion. And certainly the evidence is hardly conclusive. I'm just
giving my impression.

>This strikes me as
>particularly silly given the way the so clearly differntiate themselves
>from so many different kinds of people/politicos. Reaching out to a
>variety of struggles that they see are also in movement against
>neoliberalism and for alternatives is NOT the same as trying to be "all
>things to all people" --its called trying to build alliances and
>complementary struggles.

There's nothing particularly wrong with trying to be all things to all
people in their circumstances though. They are reaching out to a wide range
of possible allies is quite understandable. The concern I have is not to do
with lending support to their cause, but with having unrealistic
expectations of their struggle.
>

>Bill: Cite us some gibberish --I already know tons of unambiguous
>writings. Do you hate poetry or what? Do you think all ~communiques' have
>to come coded in some standardized leftist language for you not to call
>the authors frauds?

I probably would have a great deal of trouble decoding "standard leftist
language", if there is any such animal. Poetry is OK in its place, hate is
too strong a word though. I haven't kept any of the Marcos communiques I
have read, sorry.

>Bill: OK, having leveled your charges, let's see some substantiation or
>retraction.

I am happy to retract, if I believe I have been wrong, I have no emotional
committment to what I have said. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if my best
efforts at reasoning had once again turned out to be a load of codswallop.

But, as you see, I am not in a position to substantiate either and really
it is a hard thing to substantiate. How can I prove that my impression was
that these communications seemed to be deliberately vague, let alone show
that it would be difficult for anyone else, perhaps of greater intelligence
than me, to grasp clear meaning that I cannot.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.






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