[Imc-strategies] how we define ourselves - marcos on 'anarchism"

[Sheri Herndon]

how do we define ourselves?

seems to be a question that might pertain to ongoing strategy.  are 
we a decentralized network, a more centralized network?  or an 
emergent network as some have been suggesting?  are we an anarchist 
organization or do we organize along anarchist lines?  and given the 
wide diversity of how these terms are defined, what does that mean 
really.

considering that the topic of indymedia and anarchism is one that 
frequently comes up, i thought i'd pass this along as well.

indymedia is currently a digital network with principles of unity 
that bind us together.  but what about the gaps?  do we let those 
gaps interfere with our work because we haven't figured out a way to 
"agree to disagree", or do we find a way to understand our 
differences throughout the network and allow them to be productive 
spaces allowing for true diversity rather than more branding and a 
kind of monoculture of the mind.  (oooh we're not there yet but i 
love that phrase, coined by vandana shiva i believe)....i think this 
cuts at the heart of some very interesting questions facing us as we 
grow.  how we define ourselves locally and collectively.

to me thinking strategically is thinking reflectively.  self and 
collective reflection.  it's one of the principles of living systems 
which tend to be very chaordic and in some people's opinions, very 
anarchistic.  i think matthew arnison writes quite eloquently about 
this.  as do others.

ciao
sheri

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WE ARE NOT A PROJECT: Marcos on `Anarchism`

First and foremost, it must be said that only small elements of the 
Frente Zapatista are willing to engage in a debate with insignificant 
elements along an ideological fringe. One would find even fewer 
warriors within the Ejercito Zapatista who would be willing to engage 
in intangible rhetorical battles with people whose greatest virtue is 
spreading their lack of understanding and knowledge around in 
newspapers and magazines. But the article entitled "The EZLN Is NOT 
Anarchist" [authored by Theodore Kazcinski] reflected such a 
colonialist attitude of arrogant ignorance, several of us decided to 
write a response to you. You are right. The EZLN and its larger 
populist body, the FZLN are NOT Anarchist. Nor do we intend to be, 
nor should we be. In order for us to make concrete change in our 
social and political struggles, we cannot limit ourselves by adhering 
to a singular ideology.

Our political and military body encompasses a wide range of belief 
systems from a wide range of cultures that cannot be defined under a 
narrow ideological microscope. There are anarchists in our midst, 
just as there are Catholics and Communists and followers of Santeria. 
We are Indians in the countryside and workers in the city. We are 
politicians in office and homeless children on the street. We are gay 
and straight, male and female, wealthy and poor. What we all have in 
common is a love for our families and our homelands. What we all have 
in common is a desire to make things better for ourselves and our 
country. None of this can be accomplished if we are to build walls of 
words and abstract ideas around ourselves. Over the past 500 years, 
we have been subjected to a brutal system of exploitation and 
degradation few in North America have ever experienced.

We have been denied land and freedom since before your country was 
even made and accordingly have a much different view on the world 
than you. We were subjected by colonial rule first by the Spanish, 
then by the French and Germans and lastly by the North Americans. For 
centuries Mexicans have been slaves and fodder and treated as less 
than human; a fact that scars us to this day and a fact we cannot and 
should not forget.

Our past has made us what we are today and in attempting to break 
this historical trend of exploitation, we have risen up multiple 
times in attempts to reclaim our humanity and better our lives. First 
we fought with Juarez and Hidalgo against the Spanish crown, then 
Zapata and Villa against the Porfiriato.

Now we fight against the different faces of the same head seeking to 
keep us enslaved as subhuman servants to Capital. This is not a 
struggle that was picked up from a book or gleaned from a movie, but 
a struggle we all inherited the moment we were given the light of 
life. This is a struggle that is in front of all our lives, even 
running through our blood. It is a struggle many of our fathers and 
grandfathers died for and one we ourselves are willing to die for. A 
struggle necessary for our people and our country. It is apparent 
from your condescending language and arrogant short-sightedness that 
you understand very little about Mexican History or Mexicans in 
general.

We may be "fundamentally reformist" and may be working for "nothing 
concrete that could not be provided for by capitalism" but rest 
assured that food, land, democracy, justice and peace are terribly 
precious when you don't have them. Precious enough to struggle for at 
any cost, even at the risk of offending some comfortable people in a 
far off land who think their belief system is more important than 
basic human needs. Precious enough to work for with whatever tools we 
have before us, be it negotiations with the State or networking 
within popular culture. Our struggle was raging before anarchism was 
even a word, much less an ideology with newspapers and disciples. Our 
struggle is older than Bakunin or Kropotkin.

Even though anarchists and syndicates have fought bravely with us, we 
are not willing to lower our history to meet some narrow ideology 
exported from the same countries we fought against in our Wars for 
independence. The struggle in Mexico, Zapatista and otherwise, is a 
product of our histories and our cultures and cannot be bent and 
manipulated to fit someone else's formula, much less a formula not at 
all informed about our people, our country or our histories. You are 
right, we as a movement are not anarchist. We are people trying to 
take control of our lives and reclaim a dignity that was stolen from 
us the moment Cortes came to power.

In fighting for these ends, we must do what is most effective for us, 
for all of us, without succumbing to the temptation of being divided 
into small little groups that are more easily purchased by those 
keeping us enslaved. We learned this lesson from La Malinche as she 
helped Cortes divide 30 million Mexicans up into an easily conquered 
group of feuding bodies. We learned this lesson from the 
post-independence reign of the Porfiriato and from the 
post-revolutionary betrayal at the hands of the rich powers. We see 
narrow-minded ideologies like anarchism and communism as tools to 
pull apart Mexicans into more easily exploitable groups. Rather than 
facing our enemies as groups that can be turned against each other, 
we prefer to work together as a common people with a common goal. 
Your article used the word "compromise" as though it were profanity. 
For us it is the glue that holds us all together in a common struggle.

Without these compromises that allow us to work together, we would be 
nowhere; lonely slaves waiting to be exploited just as we have been 
in the past. We will not be bought off this time. We will not allow 
ourselves to be treated as particulars and accept favours from the 
powers that harvest wealth from our misfortune. And as we are doing 
things right now, it is working. 60 million people signed petitions 
to stop the War in Chiapas.

Zapatismo is alive again. We have cells in every town in every state 
all across the country made up of people from all over the 
demographic spectrum. We are organized. We are powerful. We will 
succeed in our fight simply because we are too large and too well 
organized to be ignored or quashed by the Powers.

What we have may not be perfect. It may not be ideal. But it is 
working for us now in a very much visible fashion. And we wouldn't 
hesitate to say that if you were in our position, you would be doing 
the same things. But what really enraged us in your article was the 
familiar old face of colonialism shining through your good 
intentions. Lots of North Americans come to Mexico and turn up their 
nose at our food and our lifestyles, claiming that we are not as good 
as things they have "back home."

The author of your article does the same thing in his "critiques" of 
Zapatismo. If these "critiques" had included a detailed discussion on 
our tactics with reference to our history and current positions in 
the world, it wouldn't have been a big deal, nothing that we don't do 
constantly within our own organizations.

But the fact that he just slagged Zapatismo off as being a vanguard 
of reformist nationalists without even a touch of analysis on WHY 
this is, illustrates that once again we Mexicans are not as good as 
the all knowing North American Imperialist who thinks himself more 
aware, more intelligent and more sophisticated politically than the 
dumb Mexican.

This attitude, though hidden behind thin veils of objectivity, is the 
same attitude that we have been dealing with for 500 years, where 
someone else in some other country from some other culture thinks 
they know what is best for us more than we do ourselves. Even more 
disgusting to us was the line "The question of revolutionary 
solidarity in these struggles is, therefore, the question of how to 
intervene in a way that is fitting with one's aims, in a way that 
moves one's revolutionary anarchist project forward."

It would be difficult for us to design a more concise list of 
colonial words and attitudes than those used in this sentence. 
"Intervene?" "Moves one's 'project' forward?" Mexicans have a very 
well developed understanding of what "intervention" entails. Try 
looking up Conquista and Villahermosa and Tejas and Maximilian in a 
history book for even a small glimpse of what we see when North 
Americans start talking about "intervention." But once again, the 
anarchists in North America know better than us about how to wage a 
struggle we have been engaged in since 300 years before their country 
was founded and can therefore, even think about using us as a means 
to "advance their project."

That is the same exact attitude Capitalists and Empires have been 
using to exploit and degrade Mexico and the rest of the third world 
for the past five hundred years. Even though this article talks a lot 
about revolution, the attitudes and ideas held by the author are no 
different than those held by Cortes, Monroe or any other corporate 
imperialist bastard you can think of.

Your intervention is not wanted nor are we a "project" for some 
high-minded North Americans to profit off. The author talks much 
about revolutionary solidarity without ever defining the term. What 
does revolutionary solidarity mean to him? From the attitude of his 
article it is apparent that revolutionary solidarity is more or less 
the same thing to him as "profit margins" and "cost/benefit analyses" 
are to corporate imperialists, ways to use someone else for one's own 
gain.

So long as North American anarchists hold and espouse colonialist 
belief systems they will forever find themselves without allies in 
the third world. The peasants in Bolivia and Ecuador, no matter how 
closely in conformity with your rigid ideology, will not appreciate 
your condescending colonial attitudes anymore than would the freedom 
fighters in Papua New Guinea or anywhere else in the world.

Colonialism is one of the many enemies we are fighting in this world 
and so long as North Americans reinforce colonial thought patterns in 
their "revolutionary" struggles, they will never be on the side of 
any anti-colonial struggle anywhere.

We in the Zapatista struggle have never asked anyone for unflinching, 
uncritical support. What we have asked the world to do is respect the 
historical context we are in and think about the actions we do to 
pull ourselves from under the boots of oppression. At the same time, 
you should be looking at your own struggles in your own country and 
seeing the commonalties we have between us. This is the only way we 
have to make a global Revolution.




-- 


In sum, we are an army of dreamers, and therefore invincible.  How 
can we fail to win, with this imagination overturning everything.

-- Subcomandante Marcos