Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 11:44:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Edgar Abarca Rojano <sestrada-AT-fcfm.buap.mx>
Subject: M-NEWS: E;Comments on Report on Workshop #1a & 1b (3/3), Aug 26 (fwd)






---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 14:51:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: Chiapas95 <owner-chiapas95-AT-mundo.eco.utexas.edu>
Subject: E;Comments on Report on Workshop #1a & 1b (3/3), Aug 26

This posting has been forwarded to you as a service of 
Accion Zapatista de Austin.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:51:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Montyneill-AT-aol.com
Reply-To: aut-op-sy-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: AUT: mesa1a-3/3-comment

3. Structure of encuentro 2 and ideas for continuing the work:

a) who is in charge of what? Do we need to develop a body that can reasonably
and fairly represent the encuentro to act politically and then logistically
in developing the next encuentro? How would that connect with the wider range
of people who are to be represented?

Decisions about the political and organizational structures of the next
encuentro should not rest with one nation, or even one continent, though
whoever is on the ground where it will be necessarily bears the brunt of the
logistics. My point is not to bash the Europeans or the residents in the
Spanish state, who at least pulled off a reasonably successfuly encuentro
(THANK YOU!), but to think to the next stage. There will be meeting(s) in
Europe, but there need to be ways to obtain ideas and views from the rest of
the planet on how best to proceed. In a post last winter, I critiqued the
consulta held last winter as being rather non- political -- but how can the
disucssions proceed politically with a dispersed political subject linked
uncertainly in what are at best embryonic networks of communiation?

b) travel. There were good political reasons for the travel around Chiapas,
but I am not aware of good political reasons for all the travel in Spain,
particularly to El Indiano at the end. It seems to me that of a 9-day event,
4 were devoted to real work. That is a very wasteful ratio: we come from too
far at too great an expense to spend our time on buses and trains unless
there is a powerful political justification. The next encuentro needs to
minimize travel and also ceremonies -- is it really useful to read versions
of papers shortened to the point of platitudes all day in the hot sun? (No, I
was not at El Indiano, but every report I have heard says it was not a good
use of time and resources.)

c) organization of mesas. Above, I noted a significant disagreement between
Madrid 1a/b and Barcelona 1a; it may not have been resolvable, but could have
been talked about. In general, the separation of 1a was a very bad idea. We
were able to have a meeting at the very start of the encuentro of 30 people,
all of whom agreed the separation was a bad idea. We should see what other
mesas have to say, but I think this very definitely should not be replicated.
Given the limitations of time, it may be perfectly OK to have different sub-
mesas at different sites -- we may not meet anyway -- but sub-mesas
definitely should not be split.

d) it was difficult to deal with interventions that simply had little to do
with the discussion at hand (in this case, work and production and
resistance) This may not be solvable -- a "strong chair" would be apt to
cause more problems than would be solved.  But we need to make this a topic
of thought. In his report, Andrew Flood noted that going "off point" was
often in fact positive in that submesa. But in 1a, we were treated to such
things are presentations on electing representative assemblies, with no
effort made to address work and production. In other cases, agendas were
presented which indeed had a connection, but with no apparent effort to then
connect to anyone else's agenda, simply to present ones own story. These are
of course different problems, but each is a problem. I do not have an answer
to this problem, and wonder if others also perceive the same problem.

e) How can we best help each other? We come from very different circumstances
and it is not often evident how we can help each other, or how to use the
encuentro to create the means to help each other. This is a central political
question that the encuentro needs to discuss in preparation for the next one.
That is, what is the political use of the encuentro?

4) Continuing the mesa 1a discussion.

Perhaps the discussions can continue within the mesas or even submesas. Uli
Brand was pushing for those who had been at mesa 1a in Chiapas to to meet and
talk, but the logistics got too complex (starting from the mess of having
mesa 1 in two cities), so it did not happen. 
Continuing the discussions poses the question of how to include new people.
It also raises questions of the logistics of continuing discussions in the
interim with all those who want to participate -- including translation (I am
already scrambling to find someone to give me at least a summary translation
of Ana Esther Cecena's comments on mesa 1a in Barcelona). And if we focus on
continuing the discussion by mesa, will we fragment ourselves too much? Even
within mesa 1, what are the connections among the sub-mesas; to say nothing
of connections across the mesas? What did the women/anti-partiarchy mesa(s)
say about "economy"? -- this could be very important for continuing
disucssion in mesa 1a. We can read things, and perhaps there will on occasion
be summary sorts of pieces arising from different topical areas that can be
shared across the mesas -- but that too will have to be planned for so they
can in fact be shared. (I am assuming almost no one will be able to
participate in a discussion groups that might ensue from many sub-mesas or
mesas; hence the need for summaries to share across mesas, much as -- I hope
-- the reports of the mesas will be widely available.) And while this
presentation I am making is is focused on topics, there is also the issue of
territorial bases of struggles (e.g., the zapatistas, anti- Maastricht) which
cross the lines of the mesas. (Indeed, structuring the mesas by topic seemed
to have the effect of precluding discussions of supporting the EZLN). These
'territorial' bases also have discussion networks (that hopefully lead to
action), and those too will need summary. 

A post by Harry Cleaver from last June he recently re-posted does, I think,
take us a bit further toward thinking about constructing electronic
discussion forums that can serve these purposes (e.g., RICA), but as I said
above, I think a lot still needs to be done. [And for those who read his
post, his term "grand synthesis" is I think very problematic on several
levels -- just who is it that will perform this "grand synthesis" and how
will "they" adequately include the variety of the planetary class -- can that
even be done? that is, the term carries the, probably unintentional,
implication of the old crew of theoreticians who represent a sector of the
class attempting to define the class and its struggles; that aside, Harry's
comments do I think move the thinking about networks ahead.]

A proposal: All that said, might there be a way to focus discussion on the
topics of work and production, capitalist and "post-capitalist" economics in
an electronic forum, with some agreement to share responsibilites for those
not on internet (e.g., printing out material and mailing it, knowing that
will proceed at a slower parallel pace -- but then, for me one frustration
with the internet discussions on the lists I am on is they often go to fast,
then end abruptly... we will need to learn perhaps some kinds of patience,
making the machine fit a perhaps more human pace). 

One option, already used to some extent, is the aut-op-sy list. Andrew Flood
plans to use the encounter2 list to focus mainly on issues of communication,
and thus the development of networks of communication, that arose from mesa
3. Using aut-op-sy would bring in lots of folks. It is currently mostly in
English, some in Italian, but would need at least to be open to discussions
in Spanish. (Issues of translation are going to be major here as well -- many
ponencias were not translated though they arrived well over a month before
the encuentro began.) So, since I am posting this to aut-op-sy, what do its
participants think? Clearly this would not preclude other aut-op-sy
discussions, but it presumably would bring in numbers of people not now on
aut-op-sy. But if this is objectionable, then we will need a separate
discussion list and perhaps archive (we have one offer already to set such a
space up).
If people think this is a reasonable idea (on aut-op-sy or some other venue),
please say so. 



To conlude, let me sketch a few ideas on proceeding, assuming we have a group
that wants to proceed. Three things that will be needed quickly: a) spreading
the word in a way that will bring in a strong range of discussants (this
posting will, I am sure, not reach many people who I would hope would
participate in such a list); b) finding ways to get at least some things
translated. c) finding ways to agree on framing discussions and topics that
lead toward strategies and networks for struggles; 

a) I am concerned that, for example, I do not have email addresses for most
of the people at Madrid 1a/b, and that many probably do not have email, and
that there are many other people who would be interested who we need to
contact. If we are to proceed, we have to agree to find ways to locate such
people and include them, including those who are not on the net. Note also
that there are other existing 'networks' that we need to pay attention to,
such as around food and land which I am told involves many women, perhaps
some of whom were involved in the encuentro (which for example connects to
mesa 1a/b issues of alternatives and of work relations.) Ideas? Offers?
Contacts?

b) It may be that people conversing within a given language will have to find
a way to agree on what are particularly important comments, reports,
analyses, etc., and get them translated. Encuentro 2 proceeded primarily in
Spanish and English, but there were attendees who know neither, so that makes
it yet more complex. This implies of couse that we have somewhat parallel and
therefore inevitably somewhat diverging discussions in the different
languages. 

c) Framing the discussions to get us started is the politically complext and
tricky part. Mesa 1a documents and networks/strategies can be starting points
for discussion (see the web sites listed earlier), and we already have some
discussion going (Franco has several posts, Ana Ester in Spanish, and this
one, that I know of so far). Franco has presented some ways of thinking about
proceeding, which I have not yet digested and so will not now reply to.
Instead, some additional thoughts.

In his paper I note above, Harry uses the term database, which is a term some
of us had arrived at independently, to I think the same end: that is, we need
a database of reports and analyses that will enable us to further both a
general analysis and development of strategies and that can be useful to each
of us in our particular struggles (learning from each other). Franco
commented on the need for research. I would argue that this research should
be first about struggles and second about what capital is doing (they are of
course related). I most certainly hope that these are not going to be only by
academicians -- we need a lot more than that. 

We have seen some analyses: Graeme's reports on the Liverpool dockers'
struggles is something of a model for this
<http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3843/dockhome.html> and more recent
reports at <... /3843/june97.html> and <... july97.html>. The fHuman London
ponencia is a valuable piece for exploring the complexities of finding how
one no can be built out of many nos and whether there is a commonality across
the "many yeses" (including the dockers, and an issue Graeme raises also). 

To develop this "database" is another reason we need many people involved --
there are a lot of struggles we should know about and learn from. That is, we
need to actively work at developing the "network to support struggles" called
for at the end of the first encuentro. 

This database and discussions about it can then be used to develop political
lines for discussion and to develop common actions that might strengthen our
common "no." 

We could also proceed by thinking about possible topics: 
-- what are the basic changes under neoloberalism, including the new
divisions of labor, and how do they manifest in different spaces? 
-- what is the role of NGOs?
-- what current strategies are being employed in particular struggles and
what do analyses of those suggest for moving ahead?
-- is "localism" an alternative -- or, how can localism be an alternative
that can strengthen our struggles against capitalism?
-- how do we connnect support for the EZLN with other work? This would
include deepening our understanding of why they are important. (Can we make a
parallel with Spain in the 30s? That defeat was probably critical for world
war 2 and the "post-war" struggles. Is the Zapatista struggle of the same
consequence? If not, of what consequence? -- aside from our love for them and
desire to help them in any case.

Can we prioritize topics for investigation and analysis? 

Finally, in doing all this work we will need to be explicit about who we are.
I hope the "we" will end up truly diverse, including many sectors of the
planetary working class. But we will not be "everyone." That is, we need to
be clear about who we as individuals and groups are. I am not , by the usual
constructs of the terms, a woman, an indigenous, an African- American, a gay,
a factory worker; I am male, European-American, live in the US, almost 50
years of age, married (a grandfather); have been involved in such struggles
over the years as against the Vietnam war, supporting black liberation,
prisoner struggles, developing co- ops, education reform; have worked in
education in a variety of ways (teacher, administrator, now with an
'advocacy' group, a sort of small NGO or non-profit); am mono- lingual; have
been influenced a lot by Italian autonomia and by wages for housework; think
I am something of a Marxist and communist (with a small c -- not a Leninist);
been part of Midnight Notes for nearly 20 years now. This of course is not a
political definition of who I am -- but it should show clearly that I am not
"every man", not a "universal subject" -- but I know I am part of the world's
working class and want to figure out how to get out of being a proletarian by
helping to abolish/overcome the working class through ending capital. And
also, of course, there are power relations within the class that cannot be
eliminated by good intentions alone: we must be aware of them and address
them, explicitly (again, a central point in the ponencia I co-authored).
Well, there are many subjectivities in our world, and we need to find what is
shared and not shared and how to develop our struggles.

That's it for now. Thanks for your time and I hope this has contributed
something.

Monty Neill
<montyneill-AT-aol.com> or <mneillft-AT-aol.com>


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


--
To unsubscribe from this list send a message containing the words
unsubscribe chiapas95 to majordomo-AT-eco.utexas.edu.  Previous messages are
available from http://www.eco.utexas.edu or gopher://eco.utexas.edu.