Saturday, August 12, 2006

Three Years of the JBG

Originally published in Spanish by La Jornada
*****************************
Translated by irlandesa



La Jornada
Saturday, August 12, 2006.


Those of Below

Gloria Muñoz Ramírez


Three Years of the JBG

La Realidad, Chiapas.

On August 9, unnoticed by the press, but in zapatista territory, the work of the good government juntas was celebrated, but not with dances or ceremonies. They were created in 2003 in order to consolidate a process which got underway in December of 1994 with the creation of 38 autonomous and rebel municipalities.

The red alert that was agreed more than three months ago in solidarity with the 27 prisoners of San Salvador Atenco and of the Other Campaign did not bring the autonomías to a standstill, although it did put off contacts with the outside and some of the towns’ projects, their way of endorsing their support of those whom they consider to be their compañeros.

The “Madre de los caracoles del mar in nuestros sueños” caracol, better known as the caracol of La Realidad, remains closed, with large banners on the main doors, on which can be read “Closed for red alert”. Here, no contacts or visits are possible. The junta is not here, but it emerged that the turnover of positions is being prepared, that is, the delivery of a clear accounting to the peoples and to the new members of what will be the second good government junta in this region.

A journey through the cañada of the Euseba River, the banks of the Jataté River and the road from Margaritas to San Quintín allowed us to see the ongoing work of the San José del Río hospital, of the Santa Rosa clinic, of the schools in San José, Guadalupe Tepeyac and La Realidad, among others.

The people, say the zapatistas, are the ones who have learned the most from this entire process. “They have learned to give orders to the officials, to manage their education, their health and other needs. It’s been difficult, because there are a lot of things that have to be organized, but that’s what we’re doing.”

Autonomía will follow its path. The peoples continue to think that “this is beginning”, because, as they say here: “We aren’t taking autonomy from a model, but we’re building it, we’re making it and putting it together, looking for its components. We don’t even know what it’s going to look like later. But what is certain is that we’re not what we were like three years ago, much less before the war.”

It takes work to be a zapatista. It is not easy to work in the field or the coffee plantation, in the tasks of health and of education, in the building of a road, in the marketing process, in the building of schools, clinics and training centers; in the work as community and municipal police; in the political assemblies in the village or in the region. And, in addition, “not swallowing or taking anything from the government.”

“This, says Miguel, “we’re all proud of. It’s our work. It’s just not easy, but that’s why we’re zapatistas.”
(The zapatistas have become stronger in the face of death and the persecution ordered by the government. The same thing will happen in Oaxaca and Atenco. It’s incredible, as a man in Oaxaca told this newspaper, “that compañeros have to die for that group to exist.”)

Monday, July 10, 2006

Almeyra: Words and Acts

Originally published in Spanish by Memoria
*********************************
Translated by irlandesa


Memoria
June 2006

http://memoria.com.mx



Words and Acts


The events in San Salvador Atenco compel us to address the issues of what phase the country is in and what the left can and should do in order to be able, first, to defend the margins for democracy and, simultaneously, to prepare an anti-capitalist solution to the crisis which is assailing us. Inflammatory rhetoric is of no use for guidance or for changing anything, since insults and threats do not kill anyone.


Almeyra, Guillermo


Where are we, then? The social movements – which are few in number – are all defensive: like the miners, La Parota, the very combative indigenous campesinos of the Isthmus and the union front which is defending its autonomy. The widespread emigration - from Chiapas, including zapatista areas, to all the rest of the corners of the country - demonstrates, for its part, that the majority of Mexicans are “voting with their feet” in order to seek better integration into the capitalist system. They are even risking their lives for that, and they have no hope of obtaining a social change in the country from which they are fleeing.

There is a social left, as always, but it is more weakened by emigration and unemployment than in the past, and it is, in addition, dispersed and without common objectives. There is, on the other hand, no unified student movement, nor any student activism of real importance. There have, however, and this is extremely important, been various rapprochements between campesinos and workers and ephemeral organizing fronts. Also, the rift between many important unions (including their leadership) and the government is a fait accompli, which has left the government machine with just a handful of discredited “charros.” While anti-democratic and corrupt leaders (like Hernández Juárez or Vega Galina) still have weight in the opposition union front, they have been forced to abandon their support of the PRI and the government in order to not lose their bases. They have even had to convene a one hour national strike – an unprecedented event – which mobilized five million workers (who are not, of course, charros, despite the fact that they are still not in a position to throw them out). Thanks to momentum from the SME electrical workers, but with the support of hundreds of social organizations, the third National Dialogue has been held, and the program is being maintained in Querétaro. It is of class oriented and has a general nationalist significance, which could be transformed into the foundation for substantive agreements among the various sectors of the exploited.

The left which declares itself anti-capitalist is, for its part, extremely fragmented, and its influence among the exploited is exceedingly weak. In addition, one part of it has turned into the organizational core of the Other Campaign, whose leadership, however, is in the hands of the political group which gives the platform to the EZLN. Meanwhile, another part, somewhat more numerous, is scattered among the PRD election activity, where it has little influence from an organizational viewpoint, as can be seen in that party’s list of candidates, as well as in its statements and public positions.

To top it off, the country is a few days from elections which will be much more important than all the previous ones, but in which one must choose between the PRD and two versions of savagely repressive neoliberal policies at the service of large international financial capital and of United States imperialism. They have the liquidation of Pemex in their sights, as well as the privatization of the electrical and water industries, the destruction of those union laws and victories which still survive and the privatization of learning and of cultural resources and institutions.

The PRI (the bureaucratic-reactionary version of that class doctrine) or the PAN (semi-fascist and clerical version of same) are confronting, basically united, the PRD (which is again proposing a vaguely nationalist and distributive capitalist policy, already failed in the 80s and resurrected in order to put itself at the service of an important sector of national capitalists).

In other words, the exploited have to choose between various capitalist policies and wings, and they still do not have their own option, another program for the country. What is at stake is being fought over above them, often with their passive participation as the “electoral infantry” of one of the two blocks which have maintained shared policies in basic problems, such as the anti-indigenous law, the Monsanto law and the Televisa law. It is logical, therefore, that the oppressed, who are electors, continue to think about emigration, have no electoral enthusiasm and, if they do not desert the ballot box, are thinking of voting for a Salvador (Mexican political education involves hoping for a change from the pinnacle of the state pyramid) or for the least malicious. This is what they are doing instead of using the election campaign for discussing what to do in their regions or territories, what the needs are, what the possible solutions are and how to organize themselves in order to impose those solutions directly.

Regarding the Other Campaign, it is exactly that: another election campaign, as its name so indicates, but directed towards the non-voting sector, which is very large because it is made up of those who cannot vote (emigrants, the five million agricultural day laborers dispersed throughout the country, those who are far away from the voting booths or sick or absent), in addition to those who do not feel the need to do so and who do not want to do so because “after all, they’re all the same.” It is a campaign directed towards making contact with those who cannot express themselves – that is exactly its primary quality - but not a campaign whose objective is organizing or raising the political level of those who participate in their events (which is also organizing). It says that López Obrador is the same as, or worse than, the other candidates, in that way cutting off bridges to those who, fairly, see that it is not like that, but who, incorrectly, limit themselves to working for their candidate’s victory, without organizing themselves. Nor does it teach what capitalism is (it only divides society into the “rich” and the “poor”), or about what the State is (they simple say “we have to throw the rich out to Miami”, without saying how, nor by what means, nor how the potential expelled and the state forces will react, in addition to the United States). It is not educating politically (it says “we’ll take the lands away from them,” “we’ll expropriate the banks”, without even outlining the minimal necessary conditions for being able to do that). It is a campaign of anti-electoral and antiestablishment agitation, but not an organizing anti-capitalist campaign.

Quickly leaving aside the histrionic-folkloric aspects (Marcos’ motorcycle tour with his chicken mascot in the back), the tourney never became anything more than making contact with sectors in struggle or those marginalized by the actions of the parties (which is undoubtedly very important, but it is also not sufficient). It sounded out their level of understanding, listened to their demands, saw their level of organization and decision-making, but they did not propose anything, even autonomy and self-management (fundamental victories of the chiapaneco zapatistas), nor did they discuss anything or present a program for the country (or the basic problems which it must confront) or organize. In addition to their sectarianism in relation to the PRD - and the false identification of the millions of their voters, their hundreds of thousands of members with their leadership - they also incorporated sectarianism in their response to those workers’ and campesino social movements not affiliated with the Other Campaign. They refused to recognize the National Dialogue, in which thousands of worker, campesino and popular organizations participated, saying it was an election maneuver by a group of “charros”. They ignored the national strike of five million workers and the miners’ strike over repression in Sicartsa and the repudiation of the governor’s naming of the secretary of their union. He said “we don’t have to look towards Bolivia.” In addition, by appearing not to accept the fact that López Obrador, even though he is a capitalist candidate, is not the same as the others - not to the government, nor to the exploiting classes - because he did not come from them, and he is supported by “the hoi polloi”. Nor are they even confronting the “strategy of tension” (assassinations, blows against the unions, repression in Atenco, slander and political lynching of the opposition), the general repressive strategy that is being directed not only against the PRD, but also against all the oppressed and exploited.

The need for a battle of ideas

Rebellion against capitalism is provoked by exploitation, dispossession, oppression, racism, by the specific way capitalism functions in Mexico. But the building of an alternative to capitalism requires slow, tortuous work in the theoretical elaboration of the practical experiences of class struggles. It requires reflection, discussion, conclusions which benefit from errors as well as triumphs; the study of history and, in particular, of the history of past struggles of the exploited classes; an analysis of the building of the State in this country and of its roots in popular consciousness. This is intellectual work which is not dependent just on intellectuals. On the contrary, it is the fruit of the operation of collective intellect, of education-learning in the struggle and in discussion, treating theoretically what emerges from experiences and providing those experiences with the contribution of those conclusions.

The Other Campaign, however, talks of an “other theory”, but it understands that objective as mere empirical verification of exploitation and, above all, it excludes the history of its analysis. It is not possible to make an anti-capitalist “other theory” without making an assessment of previous theories without running the risk of maintaining terrible confusion. For example, the Other Campaign displays huge portraits of Stalin everywhere. They are not “official”, but rather the expression of the ignorance of a group which calls itself “communist” and which is active in the organization of the trip. Tolerance in the face of that aberration is a demonstration of paternalism (“they have the right to be ignorant.”), but also of a total lack of concern for ideas and for the fact that Stalin’s portrait is, in large measure, a tacit program. It indicates, if not a policy presented as a model, at least a lack of repudiation of disastrous and counterrevolutionary policies which destroyed the October Revolution and created a powerful bureaucracy with capitalistic values, which gave rise to the mafia government and to the current Russian neo-capitalists. It warded off and sabotaged the world struggle against capitalists, buried revolutions, killed millions of campesinos in the Soviet Union, inoculated other millions of workers against socialism and emasculated Marxist thought. Pragmatism without principles (“everyone come, as long as you accept our leadership”), far from organizing, pushes away those people who think and seek. Yes, we must work together with everyone possible, but not at the cost of principles or by wallowing in the rubbish bin of history.

What is most serious is that, in a mostly conservative country, which is still hoping for changes within the system, in an unfavorable relationship of forces, without great social movements, marked by massive migration, the Other Campaign is not concerned about elevating the level of comprehension of those people who come to it. It does not try to present an anti-capitalist project for the country, nor does it talk about the country’s great problems (how to replace the hydrocarbon reserves which are running out, how to reorganize land and water resources, how to create work, how to elevate the level of popular consumption). Loudmouthed and empty rhetoric (“we’re going to expropriate the banks,” “we’re going to throw the rich out to Miami,” “the factories will be ours”) substitutes for a lack of programs and projects, without the slightest reference as to how to join forces, make alliances and build class fronts, in order to make real those promises flung into the air. Nor do they take at all into consideration the real correlation of forces or the elemental fact that power is in the hands of the exploiters and of imperialism, and that they also act and react when they see their interests in danger. The Other Campaign cannot organize because it does politics in a sectarian and primitive way, and it seeks power, but by inadequate methods like simple agitation against “the rich.” It does not teach, taking advantage, for example, of the Bolivian experience, in order to demonstrate what can be done legally, how to combine social movements and the struggle within them, how to make alliances. On the contrary, he says “we don’t have to look at Bolivia” and the same as the Bolivian and South American ultra-left, trying to weaken the government of Evo Morales and keeping a tight hold on aid while the Bolivian right and all the forces of capitalism are trying to defeat it. He doesn’t teach doing politics, showing the divisions in the combination of opposition forces, explaining over what, and to what extent, López Obrador has clashed with the other candidates, and which sectors are supporting which and what their plans are and their effects on the country and on the oppressed. When Marcos exclaims “screw the correlation of forces!”, he is teaching vulgar voluntarismo to his followers, who are ignorant of what battle is being unleashed, of what the enemy’s methods are, of how there is consensus on those methods in certain sectors, and this leads them to a lack of organizational and political preparation. By replacing reason and considered commitment with rage and improvisation, he leads them to disastrous adventures, as in Atenco.

The Other Campaign is, it is true, fighting against capitalism’s lack of ethics and its agents (the rapes, assassinations, dispossessions, the terrible exploitation, racism), but it does not present an opposing ethic. That is why it has no problem accepting the portraits of Stalin, whose system assassinated millions of workers and campesinos, raped en masse, built inhuman labor and extermination camps, collaborated with the nazis during the Molotov-Ribentropp Pact, destroyed all democratic rights and physically annihilated their opponents. It tacitly accepts the principle that the ends justify the means, and thus legitimate hate towards the police who repress in order to preserve the system culminates, as in San Salvador Atenco, in brutalities against a prostrate policeman, savagely beaten when he could not have been a danger to anyone. The Vietnamese and Cuban revolutionaries condemned the mistreatment of prisoners and torture. They did not practice them even when the enemy resorted to those methods. Where, on the other hand, are Marcos’ condemnations of the lynching of a defenseless policeman which provided a pretext for the ferocity of the repression against the people of Atenco? Is he afraid that by condemning it he would be justifying the police barbarity, when that barbarity is typical of the system but is “justified” against the most deprived sectors by the pretexts shown by the victims’ barbarism. Would not realistic objectivity involve dividing the policemen who refuse to carry out any criminal orders of the assassins and rapists, and not uniting them? If Marcos says “screw the correlation of forces,” then why did he agree to an interview on Televisa with Loret de Mola, settling in on a sofa, smoking calmly, as if he were in his own house and not in hostile territory, and let De Mola conduct the interview without even trying to say anything? Could it be that he does not understand that TV – which he did not say anything against during his interview – is part of the adverse “correlation of forces” and he wanted to make himself cute, tolerable, so that at least a lot of people would see him.

The Other Campaign’s big problem is that it is dependent on the political preparation of just Marcos and of a small handful of assistants. The immense majority of those who support zapatismo, especially among intellectuals, are afraid to posit “buts” (let alone constructive criticism) out of fear, first of all, of helping the “enemy” (and also, although to a lesser degree, since they are not cowards, but mistakenly accountable, of being attacked or condemned in a sectarian response). In Chiapas, Marcos is subject to the control and influence of the communities’ good sense. During his tour, on the other hand, that is not happening, and he is using the blank check they have given, and are giving him, with disastrous results. The general situation is increasingly complicated, and the task he has undertaken, decisively and courageously, far exceeds his abilities, and it demands reflection, maturity, international political vision and a policy of alliances.
If the Other Campaign contributes – as it seems to be doing, through its acts and through its deficiencies – to the victory of the government’s candidate, PANista Felipe Calderón, we will not have long to wait for the offensive by the right and by imperialism and the subsequent repression, because they will have to strike while the iron is hot. The reorganization of popular forces will take place amidst confusion, and it will take time. The defeat of the PRD will mark, of course, for the midterm, its destruction and the emergence, in order to fill the vacuum, of a leftist party, which will develop amid political confusion. Large sectors who will be voting for López Obrador, hoping for a change, will retain general support of zapatismo, especially if it is attacked, as the right desires, which says the truce is no longer justified, but those sectors will have accounts to settle with Marcos and with the Other Campaign. Will they have the maturity to seek, with them, a single defensive front and to begin to do politics, to have a program, ethics, pluralism and theoretical rigor? That is not dependent just on the Other Campaign, but also on those who, conquering their fear of making constructive criticism, understand that that is precisely the duty of friends, of compañeros, who cannot, nor should not, accept the role of Greek chorus in the drama.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Marcos & Durito on bricks, curtains and fish

Originally published in Spanish by Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos
***************************************
Translated by irlandesa


On bricks, curtains and fish

(Dialogue between Durito, Juan de Mairena and a superfluous nose)


I must publicly apologize: the present text, in its basic corpus, does not belong to me, rather it is the transcription of a recorded tape. Said recording tape (or “cassette” for the rabble), has been surreptitiously extracted from the backpack of someone who looks extraordinarily like a beetle.

It could be seen as astonishing and scandalous that, in this digital age, someone would still resort to a “cassette” for recording and reproducing, but that would be nothing compared to the stupefaction that would arise from knowing that the individual in question is, in effect, a beetle. And from there deducing (it cannot be forgotten that it is a fortunate presentation which makes the audience and the reader feel verrry intelligent) that that beetle calls himself “Don Durito of La Lacandona,” is a fairly regular, that is, light to moderate, step.

Accepting this small but thick package of facts, regardless of whether they take place in real reality or in our bedeviled imagination, is an achievement for which I applaud you all. During these times of political platforms being defined in their proper dimensions (that is, as publicity “spots”), of “passes for the network” and polls which do indeed summon the entire Nation (those having to do with what place the Mexican football team will have in the World Cup), of “deep” analyses of the “correlation of forces” by pedants who call themselves the part and the whole of “progressive intellectualism,” of situating the government spokesperson in policemen’s penises (Atenco) and in grenade launchers (Atenco and Oaxaca), of the “high-level” of columnists and editorial writers who comment on and analyze what is said by…other columnists and editorial writers. In sum, in these times of “political realism” the fact that there are still people (well, it seems as if some of them even have jobs) who allow room in their hearts for accepting the existence of a beetle who professes to the misunderstood profession of knight errantry is, to put it modestly, simply marvelous.

Not just because that means I’m no longer alone with the heavy burden of knowing of the existence of this strange being, but also and above all because it is irrefutable evidence that there are still people willing to be astonished by the marvels which walk below and which, therefore, are only perceived by those who know how to see the path and the way.

The beetle in question calls himself, as almost no one here will know, Don Durito of La Lacandona, I.C. of A.I. of I.I. (for its initials: Individuality Known of Invariable Anti-capital of Unlimited Irresponsibility), Copyleft no of the Circle but Squared of Knights Errant, of which, incidentally, he is lifetime President and sole member.

Taking advantage of the fact that he is not, I believe, present, I will divest Durito of all the paraphernalia flaunted by his form of address, and I will call him “Simply Durito”.

Durito, without being invited, has traveled a good part of the lands of this unhealed wound which we call “Mexico” to be here with us in order to demand liberty and justice for the prisoners of Atenco.

He arrived, as is law, at dawn, carrying his baggage in one of those backpacks carried by the secondary school/corner/with/degree/poorly/paid/job/and/or/unemployed/but/safe/getting by/safe kids.

He was not invited to this writers’ meeting, despite the fact that he professes that exhilaration for the written word which the organizers would have had to reproach. Although perhaps they didn’t invite him because they feared he wouldn’t keep his word and would display that irresponsibility for which knights errant have been so famous, ever since that of the sad figure who exhibited said quality on the roads of Iberian La Mancha.

One cannot make serious plans with Durito. Not because he lacks formality (let us not forget that he is, yes, a beetle, but also a knight errant), but because he will suddenly grab his skateboard and head downhill, and I want you to see a security bubble here.

Yes, sometimes he just goes away. Other times he goes leaving a note which laconically states:

“My dear Face of the used shorts: Here I go then. Don’t get into (too much) trouble. Sincerely, Durito. Postscript – I took the tobacco.”

Well, so as not to tire you out too much, I’ll tell you that, when trying to recover my tobacco, I found a cassette in the backpack along with a note that read:

“For the new book, “Impossible Dialogues.” Listen: tell the redundant nose to organize an auction between the publishing houses to see which one is going to get this best seller. Author’s rights for the film, as well. The Da Vinci Code “fanfirulea” me.

End of note.

I don’t know why Durito decided to give his new creature a title like this, but we won’t worry about that now.

The dialogue we are presenting takes place between Durito, an individual about whom more will be known shortly, and the person who is making this presentation.

I said previously that I had transcribed a tape recording. When I heard it for the first time, I remembered the scene, since I had been there. It was in the “Comandanta Ramona” café, next to “El Rincon Zapatista” shop. If someone wants to go there, it’s very easy to find the place: head out as if you’re going there, but then make a U-turn where it says: “U-turns Prohibited”, and then there are a lot of traffic lights, and, when you see a good number of cops from all the agencies, bored and acting as if they’re keeping watch, there it is.

I will proceed…

It was dawn. The moon was illuminated hip of desire, although without the longed-for cleft. In the dream, a long, a long and damp kiss was opening the flower of desire and was key for opening the closed and silent heart of time.

But in the half-sleep I was picking up the mess, trying to digest some “buzzards of the world, unite” beans, and looking to see if there were a carcass of some pecan ice cream left. I had been up late listening to an alternative radio station which calls itself “La Ke Huelga”. During the program, the announcers had been digressing about dislocations.

And they moved from ankle dislocations to those of ideas, because they had been talking about love in times of revolution for a bit, and then that they agreed we were for the mobilization for the Atenco prisoners, and they moved on to love in times of repression. From there they went on to giving a lecture called “Measures against repression” or something like that, or what to do when the cops are already charging the respectable to shouts of “Against the left of below, the rule of law of above”.

I took note because of that thing about freezing. In addition to the quite classic, and of proven effectiveness, “run until you see a sign that reads ‘Welcome to Guatemala’”, they provided other measures and advice.

For example, the psychology school recommended denial, or, when the club is already on its way to its destination, shouting “No!!!!!” most convincingly. The law school would recommend, I believe, the technique of legally overwhelming the cops, shouting “Señor police officer, you are violating such and such articles of the constitution which notes that no individual can be beaten by the police if a television program has not previously intervened which presents him as a criminal” (here the riot cop wonders if the one being presented as a criminal is he, or the aforementioned against whom the rule of law is being directed, and then to feeling up, man, I’ll tell you later). The school of “instant recruitment” would advise slogans of “the uniformed peoples are also exploited” type just before, paradoxically, the tear gas grenade explodes.

There was lengthy and abundant, good and ingenious, information in the radio chat by those colleagues of “Ke Huelga”, a station I highly recommend and which broadcasts at 102.9 megahertz FM. And I’ll take the moment to send an embrace in solidarity to the compas of Radio Plantón, attacked yesterday by the police of the Oaxaca government and to all the alternative media which, below and to the left, keep us informed and recharge our batteries.

Where was I? Ah, yes! Well, it so happened that at one of the little tables in the “Comandanta Ramona” café, the only one that didn’t have books, newspapers and magazines on top of it, said Durito was sitting with an individual who was known as Juan de Mairena and who, he said, was a great friend of the Spanish poet Antonio Machado.

Durito was bogged down in Pancrema cookies and a cappuccino, with two pairs of his feet on top of the table, while Juan de Mairena, sitting quite properly, was elegantly taking a cup of tea of love.

The recording which I have faithfully transcribed here picks up some parts of the dialogue which took place between these two individuals and the “heavy duty” napkin.

It begins with the beetle speaking to me…

Durito: Listen, my dear antonym of a small nose, to the following arguments of Don Juan de Mairena:

“1. - If every exception proves a rule, a rule with exceptions will be more of a rule than would be a rule without exceptions, which would lack the exception which would prove it.

2. - A rule will be that much more of a rule the more it abounds in exceptions.

3. - The ideal rule will contain nothing but exceptions.

(Continuing this chain of reasoning , until the vortex of stupidity is reached)” (“Juan de Mairena”. Antonio Machado. Alianza Editorial, p. 40)

Me: It seems to me to be clever…and useless…reasoning.

Durito: That’s true, but not completely. Sometimes questioning the obvious leads one to a linkage which will make you forget about the Tlalpan-Taxqueno crossroads. But other times you will find that that evidence is nothing but repetitious lies…

Me: For example?

Durito: The today, that created entity, cherished and adored by modern society, the one that is arranged around the media. Is it not true that “today” is no longer a present with a past and future, and it turns into the eternal? Before it, chaos. After it, nothing.

Me: I don’t know where you’re going.

Durito (with a complicit look at Mairena): The converse would surprise me. Look, Juanito, there’s the capitalist system. Is it not true that it presents itself as eternal, omnipotent and omnipresent?

Juan de Mairena: Certainly.

Durito: Is it not true that its presence is accepted as an inevitable, primary destiny, and later as the only one possible, and then later again as the best one we have had?

Juan de Mairena: “It is what happens always: a fact is noted, afterwards it is accepted as fate. Finally it is turned into a flag. If it is discovered one day that the fact was not completely true, or that it was completely false, the flag, more or less faded, would not stop waving.” (Ibid, p. 77).

Durito: Right, a faded flag waving. That, and nothing else, is what the apologists for capitalism are doing. Now, what would happen if we were to question that whole construct?

Me: (feeling the need to contribute something to the debate): Hmm…I don’t know…we’d get bored?

Durito (looking at me disapprovingly): Besides that?

Me (with the need to go and “cincuentear”): Hmm…We’d get into trouble?

Durito (applauding with those paws which were not on top of the table or occupied with the Pancrema cookies): Correct! You got it right, my dear face of the undershirt of come/come/breaking/breaking/the/blow/warning! We would have knowledge that would get us into such predicaments that you would forget about the Hidalgo metro station at rush hour…

Me (boasting): Since we’re on the subject of public transportation, I want to denounce that the other day I went down to the metro, and they copped a feel [tortear, from torte, sandwich]…

Durito: Come on! Don’t act like a rag doll!

Me: Yes, they sold me a sandwich with ham that was as skimpy as the Governor of the State of Mexico’s brain.

Durito (stating this to the abovementioned Mairena): I am afraid, my dear sir, that we are getting off the subject. We were questioning the capitalist system. Or, better, questioning its omnipresence…

Me (focused on the issue): And the beans didn’t agree with me. They wouldn’t have passed inspection.

Durito (openly angry now): The level of debate is declining.

Juan de Mairena: Yes, yes, proceed.

Durito: Thank you, Don Juan. The elemental tools for questioning have to do with history. By studying it, we will see…

1. That this system, the capitalist one, has not existed forever.
2. That its origin has nothing to do with the spirit, the deity of choice or idealism, but with dispossession (or theft), exploitation, repression and contempt, in sum: crime.
3. That its growth and development go hand in hand with that which gave it life.

Me (putting my spoon into the conversation and into a bottle of past its used-by date pecan ice cream): But this just leads to proving the omnipotence of capitalism, in that the bad who are seen as good always win.

Durito (opening another package of cookies): I have not finished…What are the founding and fundamental tricks of this system? Equality and liberty. Capitalism says and repeats unto death that it is based in an egalitarian society and, therefore, it turns itself into the guarantor of that equality. In capitalist society we are all human beings and, therefore, we are all equals. Equal before the law, for example.

Me (lamenting the inequality which makes Durito devour all the cookies while I’m left to sweep up the mess he leaves): But that’s not true, or at least some are more equal than others. Here are the Atenco prisoners, and here are the Bribriesca children of Martha Sahagún. As if there were two laws: one for below and one for above.

Durito (throwing a fork at me for the obvious purpose of stifling the free expression of my ideas): According to capitalism, human beings are free, free to work, to become rich, to vote, to be an official, to express their thoughts.

Juan de Mairena: “The free expression of thought is an important, but secondary, problem to ours, which is that of freedom of thought itself. For one, we ask ourselves whether the thought, our thought, that of each of us, can take place with complete liberty, regardless of the fact that, then, we are allowed, or not allowed, to express it. Let us ask rhetorically: Of what use to us would be the free expression of an enslaved thought?” (Ibid, p. 179)

Durito: Good point, Don Juan. But let us go on questioning, even if they label us skeptics.

Juan de Mairena: “A devastating argument has been put forth against skepticism: The one who denies the existence of truth, assuming that is the truth, and affirms in the conclusion what was denied in the premise, contradicts oneself. I assume this argument will not have convinced any of the purebred skeptics (…) Skepticism is a vital, not logical, position, which neither affirms nor denies, it limits itself to questioning, and it is not frightened by contradictions.” (Ibid, p. 47).

Durito: Cheers for that! Then let us ask: Are we equal? Are we free? And when do we ask these questions? Let us agree to ask them now, since it is above the affirmative response to both that entire edifices of ideas…and of bricks…shall be raised.

If we answer “yes”, excuse me if I’m being rude, then I don’t understand what we are doing here. And I’m not referring to here, in this zapatista corner or to that meeting of writers for liberty and justice for the Atenco prisoners, to which they did not invite me, but to this Mexico which, below and to the left, is trying to build a path and a way, without being clear about anything other than the agreed destination.

But we are here and there for something. Perhaps, within that infinite and chaotic universe which is the “something”, it is because we answer “NO!” to those questions “Are we equal?”, “Are we free?” And with this “NO!”, we are not only putting in jeopardy the entire legal foundation of that which is called the “Rule of law” (a name which, obviously, is posited against what would be the “State of the left”), we would also be starting to question the evidence that turns into tombstones for lack of critique. We would stop swallowing what they administer to us every day from above as if it were something true.

Juan de Mairena: “It is a normal tendency for men to believe something true when it proves useful to them. That is why there are so many men who are capable of falling for things.” (Ibid, p. 67).

Durito: Then capitalist politics in the modern age would be the art of making the greatest possible number of persons swallow things. And, nonetheless, it is increasingly difficult, or at least when more “others” appear who reject the indigestion those truths provoke. As if the politics of above is no longer what it was, and I’m not saying that nostalgically, but noting a fact. It is chaos now.

Juan de Mairena: “One must demand of the public man, and most especially of the politician, that he possess the public virtues, all of which can be summed up in one: fidelity to one’s own mask. (…) a public man who is bad in public is much worse than a public woman who is not good in private. Joking aside – (…) – take note that there is no political imbroglio that is not an exchange, a confusion of masks, a bad comedy rehearsal in which no one knows his role.” (Ibid, p. 81).

Durito: Excellent, Don Juan! You have precisely defined what politics in Mexico is now: a bad comedy in which no one knows his role. That is why there is so much mistrust of politics and so much reluctance to construct a new politics.

Juan de Mairena: “Politics, gentlemen – Mairena went on – is an extremely important activity…I would never counsel being apolitical, but, as a last resort, scorn for bad politics which makes social climbers and cushy jobseekers with no purpose other than that of gaining profits and securing positions for their relatives. You should engage in politics, although I would tell something else to those who try to do so without you and, naturally, to those against you.” (Ibid, p. 136)

Durito: Then another politics would be necessary. Necessary, urgent, merited. And it seems to me that here the role of critical thought, of the intellectuals, is very important.

Juan de Mairena: “It is said that intellectuals have not done anything useful in politics thus far. Intellectuals are confused with pedants.” (Ibid, p. 54)

Me: Well now, what’s this about pedantry?

Juan de Mairena: “The specifically pedantic is denying things when they are not the way we think them to be. But things are never the way we think they are, they are much more serious and complex.” (Ibidem)

Durito: Then what would be the role of critical intellectuals? That of luxuriating spectators while society is being destroyed in the theater of politics?

Juan de Mairena: “But have you not yet noticed that almost always, when the curtain is lifted or opened in the modern theater, a room appears with three walls, lacking that fourth wall which the rooms we inhabit have? Why are you not amazed (…) by that terrible lack of verisimilitude? Because, without the absence of that fourth wall (…), how could we know what was going on inside this room?” (Ibid, p. 152).

Durito: I understand. The work of the intellectuals would be exactly that, taking down the fourth wall of the political space, showing it as it is, without anything being concealed, so we can all know what is going on in that room, and acting accordingly. Today there is a hidden injustice in the room of Power: the one that killed Alexis Benhumea Hernández, the one that raped the Atenco prisoners, the one that is illegally keeping upright men and women imprisoned, the one that represses in Oaxaca and in all the corners of the Mexico of below and to the left. That is why…

The recording ends here. I have decided to bring his transcription here because I know quite well that there are writers, bright critics, here, willing to protest against the injustice which murdered Alexis, which raped our compañeras, which keeps social activists imprisoned, which chooses repression instead of dialogue.

Because there are, among these writers, those who produce plays and, through that, are raising the curtain which allows us to see not only what is going on up above, but also inside us. Because not a few are also making poetry with the slippery bricks of words. Slippery, like a fish.

“Poetry is,” Mairena said, “the dialogue of man, of a man with his times. That is what poetry tries to make eternal, taking it out of time, difficult work which requires much time, almost all the time the poet has. The poet is a fisherman, not of fish, but of living fish, let us understand each other: of fish which can live after being caught.” (Ibid, p. 106).

Cheers to these fisherwomen and fishermen who, with words, help us to look, to look at ourselves and who are, along with us, demanding liberty and justice for the prisoners of Atenco.

From the Other Mexico City.

Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos

Mexico, June 15 of 2006.

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Loaeza & González Casanova

Originally published in Spanish by La Jornada
***********************************
Translated by irlandesa


[The following are two op-ed pieces which appeared recently in La Jornada. As you will see, there is some relation between the two, the second in some ways a response to the first. The respective authors, and their histories, will be quite familiar to many, but here they bring special light to specific issues which have been recently debated - at higher decibel and perhaps with less light - in other arenas]



La Jornada
Thursday, May 18, 2006.


The Challenge

Soledad Loaeza


There are many people in Mexico who are still skeptical about electoral democracy. Gradual changes exasperate them, they mistrust the secret vote and they spurn reasoned discourse for stridency or the ease of insult. The brain made viscera, they react furiously to political differences, they reject debate because they consider it a dangerous weapon, which it is, especially for those who have no recourse other than so-called dignified silence or verbal violence. Since they fear the discussion of ideas and of diverse political proposals, they implicitly discredit it as if it were illegitimate.

In 1999 the CGH – the vulgar minority which paralyzed activities at UNAM for a year – embodies, in an infantile and brutal manner, the victory of attitudes over ideas. Nonetheless, there are more than a few political actors these days who are proving that Mosh and his partying compañeros imposed a style of doing politics which has met with nothing more than tolerance. Many of these attitudes are the framework of action of those – leaders and followers – who have raised in recent weeks what could turn into a powerful challenge for our electoral institutions.

The union mobilizations – provoked, it’s true, by the stubbornness of officials – and the machetes of Atenco, which also seem to be those of Los Altos of Chiapas, are weighing like a Damocles sword above the upcoming election of July 2, and, even worse, above the more than 20 years of work and resources invested by everyone in the building of an inclusive political system in which politics would not be a chain of mechanical acts or repetition of clichés.

Many of those nowadays who, voluntarily or involuntarily, are calling into question the power of elections as an instrument of change, do not accept the profound political transformations of the last two decades which are proof that we have overcome the authoritarian past. They are determined to stop the democratic creation, and they are trying “…to get their poetry from the past..” instead of looking to the future, as Marx wrote regarding the bourgeois revolutionaries of 1851, the same ones who established the dictatorial power bases for Napoleon III.

The organizers of the Other Campaign, but also those candidates who – for logical consistency I imagine – would be This Campaign, for example, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and Roberto Madrazo, seem to be determined to undermine the credibility of the July 2 election, and they want to take us back “…to an extinct epoch…” and then “…the old dates, the old names reappear…” (Karl Marx, El 18 brumario de Luis Bonaparte), and they talk about the State election and about the dirty war as if Luis Echeverría were still president, and they act as if the multi-party system which has been so laboriously constructed since 1979 and the Federal Election Institution Institute did not exist.

Some of them are threatening violent confrontation, worse still, they are offering it as if it were a valid promise of the future, and is if their history in Mexico had not been a history of failures, of betrayals and of costly errors, and not just of repression. Those who are questioning the validity of the vote and the legitimacy of elections these days want to make us forget what the country was like when the parties were hardly representative, political participation was limited and it wasn’t possible to choose among different options in the elections. With their actions and their statements they are denying the political plurality of society which is reflected in the very contest for the positions of political representation, in the newspapers, among the editorialists, news announcers, observers, citizens.

Casting the shadow of doubt on the electoral institutions is the equivalent of denying the validity of political pluralism, which is one of the great achievements of Mexican democracy. The formula “Todos somos Atenco” has lost that sense of solidarity which inspired its birth in the 19th century to defend, with another name, the universality of suffrage, and it has taken on the intolerable authoritarian resonance which comes from the concept of democracy as unanimity.

It remains to be said that the same thing is happening with the different invocations with which a formula is used which has lost its greatness because it has been used for such diverse and not always honorable causes, some of them outright trivial. The worst of all is that in many cases it only serves to hide poverty of language, as happens with the responses of the politicians who resort to palabrotas as a substitute for argument. They might make us laugh, but they do not invite us to think. That is probably what they are seeking: to trivialize politics in order to conceal their own triviality.

Defending the July 2 election is a challenge not just for the IFE – which appears spineless and confused – it is an obligation for parties and candidates, and for everyone else it is the most secure and efficient instrument for guaranteeing the survival of our status as citizens.


*******************************************************************
********************************************************************

La Jornada
Monday, May 22, 2006.


Social Sciences and Democracy in Mexico (what I actually said)

Pablo González Casanova



A few days ago a roundtable was organized at the Social Research Institute of UNAM on Democracy in Mexico. At the end, they invited me to say a few words, whose principle theses did not appear in the news article. As it might be of interest for them to be known, below I will make a brief summary in an attempt to rectify the disinformation. I will say what I said:

ONE: Today, more than ever, the social sciences have to confront the problem of knowledge of the truth, the problem of critiquing the lie and the problem of speaking what one thinks and of thinking about what one doesn’t even want to think about.

It is necessary to see what is novel in such old problems: for example, the importance which has accrued to those lies which are not made in order to deceive, but in order to seek accomplices, lies whose art has so enriched international bodies and neoliberal governments. And another example: the importance which rudeness has gained, more than as insults, as crude expressions and angry responses as a substitute for critical thought in the explication of controversial issues which should be clarified.

TWO: The social sciences have to start from highly probable hypotheses, like those which are noted below, and be elucidated with all scientific resources and “narrated experiences,” taking care not to substitute reasoning with rationalization or justification, and using rhetoric as the art of persuasion which can help one in science and also in conscience.

THREE: It is false to assert that “we have moved closer to democracy, and the authoritarian regime ruled Mexico has been done away with.”

FOUR: The presidentialist regime continues, although now the final decision and the limits of freedom of action, and of the “politically correct” measures and offers, are no longer established by the President of the Republic, but rather by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the mega-businesses and the business and military complexes of the “Empire” and their native partners.

FIVE: The “separation of powers” is not in play in the primary mechanisms of the privatizing and de-nationalizing neoliberal politics in which the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial share in the “decision-making,” palabras mas, palabras menos.

SIX: The struggle of the parties disappears in concepts, vocabulary, programs, purportedly alternative to neoliberal politics, all lacking in concrete measures and in organized and articulated social foundations which would make them credible. Today the State party seems to have transformed itself into three different parties and one single truth. Fights take place between parties which were previously fought inside the PRI, and even in the PRM, as when there was discussion about whether it would be better to choose Mújica or Avila Camacho. The fights take place within the parties and between the parties, and the alliances of individuals and clients are established in order to prevail in the selection of government elites and in the distribution of public positions.

SEVEN: The constitutional reforms approved by all the parties in the “government of change” are three in number: 1st – The one which denied the rights of the Indian peoples and even deprived them of some rights which came from the colonial period. 2nd – The one which handed the mass media over to Televisa and TV Azteca. 3rd – The one which handed over ownership of archeological and cultural sites of the national heritage to the federal government, for a purpose similar to Salinas de Gortari’s when he did away with ejidal ownership and commercialized the lands of poor campesinos. Now Mexico’s cultural heritage is marketable, or it’s coming very close to being so.

EIGHT: Facing that panorama – precisely! – is a very important and positive, creative, fact – democracy has become part of the Mexican culture and of the ideals of government. The Mexican people have not “become disillusioned with democracy,” in general, as the reports of some “experts” maintain. People are increasingly critical of that so-called democracy which is neither representative nor participatory, but rather “supplantive.” In many base organizations there tends to prevail a culture in which reasoned discourse can be heard, political dialogue with clear statements, sometimes quite original, respect for beliefs and ideas, autonomy and the dignity of individuals and communities. If our authoritarian culture is still a serious problem in the alternative formations themselves and in democratic practices - and in the compliance of the majority when there is no consensus - there is still a culture of coordinated, plural and democratic collective organization which has been increasingly able to express itself among the poor of our land and among those who are with them. As for me, as all of you know, I am with the Other Campaign.

A few words in conclusion: In our country and in our university there are highly qualified personnel in the social sciences, with many international-level researchers and professors, who are in the forefront in this Latin American region, who are in the forefront in the world. Perhaps this is because we came from conquering peoples and rebels conquered to the yoke, many of whose leaders have gone to universities and colleges which neoliberalism has vainly tried to privatize and denationalize, and which have provided postgraduate studies and residencies on the campuses of the best universities in the world and on the campuses of Mexico and Latin America.

When I entered the Institute here as a research assistant, more than half a century ago, the university had not attained the high level it now has, although it was already playing that critical role, and was autonomous from the power of the State, which, with contradictions, is so important for the emancipation of the peoples. Today I am sure that it has even more possibilities and much more personnel able to link the social sciences with the theory and practice of democracy in Mexico. And then I added a few words of thanks.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Women with no fear

Originally published in Spanish by the EZLN
********************************
Translated by irlandesa



Women: Assembly Instructions?


Words from the Sixth Committee of the EZLN for the public event “Women Without Fear. We Are All Atenco.”

May 22, 2006



May 22, 2006

Good evening.

My name is Marcos, Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos.

For those of you who are familiar with zapatismo, it might not be necessary to explain what I’m doing here, at an event of and for women.

Of course you are not just women, but women who have decided to raise your voices in order to protest against the attacks the police have been making, and are making, on other women since May 3 and 4, 2006 in San Salvador Atenco, in the State of Mexico, in the Mexican Republic.

You are, here, there and everywhere, women without fear.

My name is Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos, and I am, among other things, the spokesperson for the EZLN, a primarily indigenous organization which fights for democracy, liberty and justice for our country which is called Mexico.

As spokesperson for the EZLN, those others take voice through my voice, those who comprise us, who give us face, word, heart.

A collective voice.

In that collective voice is the voice of zapatista women.

And along with our voices and hearing are also our looking, our zapatista lights and shadows.

I am called Marcos, and among the numerous personal flaws I bear, sometimes cynically and cockily, is that of being man, macho, male.

As such I must bear, and often flaunt, a series of archetypes, clichés, proofs.

Not only in regard to me and my sex, but also and above all in reference to woman, the female gender.

To those flaws which define me personally, someone might add the one we have as zapatistas, to wit, that of still not having lost the capacity for being astonished, for being amazed.

As zapatistas, sometimes we approach other voices which we know to be different, strange, and yet similar and appropriate.

Voices which astonish and amaze our ear with your light…and with your shadow.

Voices, for example, of women.

From the collective which gives us face and name, journey and path, we go to great effort in choosing where to direct ear and heart.

And so now we are choosing to hear the voice of women who have no fear.

Can one listen to a light? And, if so, can one listen to a shadow?

And who else chooses, as we are today, to lend ear – and with it, thought and heart – in order to listen to those voices?

We choose. We choose to be here, to listen to and make echo for an injustice committed against women.

We choose to be fearless in order to listen to those who were not afraid to speak.

The brutality wielded by the bad Mexican governments in San Salvador Atenco on the 3rd and 4th of May, and which is still going on, to this very night, against the prisoners, especially the violence against women, is what summons us.

And not only that. Those bad governments are trying to sow fear through their actions, and, no, what is happening now is that they are sowing indignation and anger.

In a newspaper this morning, one of the individuals who, along with Vicente Fox and his cabinet, are priding themselves on “imposing the Rule of Law,” Señor Peña Nieto (alleged Governor of the State of Mexico), stated that what happened at Atenco had been planned.

If this were so, then those who were beaten, illegally detained, sexually attacked, raped, humiliated, then they planned, among other things, to be women.

We know, from the statements of those without fear who were detained, who are our compañeras, that they were attacked as women, their women’s bodies violated.

And we also know from their words that the violence visited upon their bodies brought pleasure to the policemen.

The woman’s body taken violently, usurped, attacked in order to obtain pleasure.

And the promise of that pleasure taken on those women’s bodies was the lagniappe which the police received along with the mandate to “impose peace and order” in Atenco.

Certainly according to the government they planned on having the body of a woman, and, they planned, with extreme depravity, that their bodies would be plunder for the “forces of law.”

Señor Fox, the federal leader of “change” and of the “Rule of Law,” clarified for us a few months ago that women are “two-legged washing machines” (partial disclaimer, revolving payment plans and go to the customer service department).

And it so happens that up above those machines of pleasure and of work, which are the bodies of women, include assembly instructions which the dominant system assigns them.

If a human being is born woman, she must travel throughout her life a path which has been built especially for her.

Being a girl. Being an adolescent. Being a young woman. Being an adult. Being mature. Being old.

And not just from menarche to menopause. Capitalism has discovered they can obtain objects of work and pleasure in infancy and in old age, and we have “Gobers Preciosos” and pedophile businessmen everywhere for the appropriation and administration of those objects.

Women, they say above, should travel through life begging pardon and asking permission for being, and in order to be, women.

And traveling a path full of barbed wire.

A path which must be traveled by crawling, with head and heart against the ground.

And, even so, despite following the assembly instructions, gathering scrapes, wounds, scars, blows, amputations, death.

And seeking the one responsible for those sorrows in oneself, because condemnation is also included in the crime of being women.

In the assembly instructions for the merchandise known as “Woman,” it explains that the model should always have her head bowed. That her most productive position is on her knees. That the brain is optional, and its inclusion is often counterproductive. That her heart should be nourished with trivialities. That her spirit should be maintained by competition with others of her same gender in order to attract the buyer, that always unsatisfied customer who is the male. That her ignorance should be fed in order to guarantee better functioning. That the product is capable of self-maintenance and improvement (and there is a wide range of products for that, in addition to salons and metal and painting workshops). That she should not only learn to reduce her vocabulary to “yes” and “no,” but, above all, she should learn when she should speak these words.

There is a warranty included in the assembly instructions for the product called “Woman” that she will always have her head lowered.

And that, if for some involuntary or premeditated manufacturing defect, one should lift her gaze, then the implacable scythe of Power will chop off the place of thought, and condemn her to walking as if being a woman were something for which one must ask forgiveness and for which one must ask permission.

In order to comply with this warranty, there are governments who substitute the weapons and sex of their police officers for their lack of brain. And, in addition, these same governments have mental hospitals, jails and cemeteries for irreparably “broken” women.

A bullet, a punch, a penis, prison bars, a judge, a government, in sum, a system, puts a sign on a woman who doesn’t ask for forgiveness or permission which reads “Out of Service. Non-Recyclable Product.”

Women must ask permission in order to be a woman, and it is granted to her if she is so according to what is shown in the assembly instructions.

Women should serve men, always following those instructions, in order to be absolved of the crime of being a woman.

At home, in the fields, the street, the school, work, transportation, culture, art, entertainment, science, government. Twenty-four hours a day and 365 days a year. From when they are born until they die, women confront this assembly process.

But there are women who confront it with rebellion.

Women who, instead of asking permission, command their own existence.

Women who, instead of begging pardon, demand justice.

Because the assembly instructions say that women should be submissive and walk on their knees.

And, nonetheless, some women are naughty and walk upright.

There are women who tear up the assembly instructions and stand up on their feet.

There are women without fear.

They say that when a woman moves forward, no men move back.

It depends, I say, from my machismo reloaded perspective – a mixture of Pedro Infante and José Alfredo Jiménez.

It depends, for example, on whether the man is in front of the woman who is moving forward.

My name is Marcos, I have the personal flaw of being man, macho, male. And the collective virtue of being what we are, we who are zapatistas.

As such, I confess that I am astonished and amazed at seeing a woman raise herself up and seeing the assembly instructions shattering, torn into pieces.

A woman standing up is so beautiful that it makes one shiver just to look at her.

And that is what listening is, learning to look…

Cheers to these women, to our imprisoned compañeras and to those who are gathered here.

Cheers for your having no fear.

Cheers for the valor which you pass on to us, for the conviction you grant us that if we do nothing to change this system, we are all accomplices in it.


From the Other City of Mexico.

Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos

Mexico, May of 2006

PS WHICH ASKS: What punishment do those officials, leaders and police deserve who attacked the women, our compañeras, like that? What punishment does the system deserve which has turned being a woman into a crime? If we are silent, if we look the other way, if we allow the police brutality in Atenco to go unpunished, who will be safe? Isn’t the release of all the Atenco prisoners thus a matter of elemental justice?

Sunday, May 21, 2006

The sine qua non of legitimacy

Originally published in Spanish by La Jornada
**********************************
Translated by irlandesa


La Jornada
Sunday, May 21, 2006.


No Movement More Legitimate Than Release of Atenco Prisoners: Marcos

Emir Olivares Alonso


The movement for the release of the prisoners of San Salvador Atenco and for justice for those women who were attacked and sexually violated “has an international force which the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) strike didn’t have, and which the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) didn’t have,” stated Subcomandante Marcos during his address at the student group assembly.

Delegate Zero added that what had happened at Atenco had taken on such international relevance that now “women all over the world are mobilizing” so that the repression is not repeated.

“A woman, any of you, or someone who isn’t here, gets up in the morning, bathes and fixes herself up and looks in the mirror and asks herself: “Am I fixing myself up for those bastards to detain me and rape me?” (…) This feeling of defenselessness which turned into being on guard thanks to the attitude of the compañeras’, and those who are still imprisoned, has given rise to a legitimate movement. There isn’t a movement in this country as legitimate as that of the release of the prisoners taken on May 3 and 4 in Atenco. None.”

He warned that after the denuncias of what happened during the detention in Atenco and the trip to the jail in Santiaguito in Almoloya, the state of Mexico, social groups should ensure that every woman “be treated with gentleness,” since “we are not going to allow” what happened two weeks ago “to be repeated.”

He stated that no political organization has the legitimacy of that movement. “At the best, a bothersome interview was contributed. We think it contributed.”

He added that, after appearing on television, the media began reversing the attitude that the residents of San Salvador Atenco had been the aggressors, and “now the police operation lacks all legitimacy, but that belongs to the lawyers.”

The group assembly, held yesterday in the Che Guevara auditorium in the UNAM Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, lasted more than seven hours, with some 400 students discussing, in front of Delegate Zero, the actions they would be carrying out in response to events in Atenco.

Subcomandante Marcos urged them to listen and not to decide for those who were absent, since it’s “not about making the assembly as long as possible, for seven hours. There were 400 (participants), and, according to the vote count, there were 150. And the other 250? And the other thousands who are supporters of the Other Campaign? It’s fucked! The group has already decided, and that’s how it’s going to be, even though the Other Campaign is saying there are other ways of doing politics. We said the organizational process has to be respected.”

Delegate Zero attacked the method the students were using for discussion. “It’s good that you listen to all the positions, but those who aren’t here should be taken into account. That’s what we’re proposing.” He said that what should be at stake during the assembly is that the movement not be exhausted.

“We, as a group, can decide, given that at no point has the Other Campaign said that an assembly can make an agreement for the rest of the supporters, even at the last assembly in the Che (last Saturday) we said we couldn’t make a decision. We can propose, but we can’t decide.”

After the long assembly session, the students agreed that they would participate in the marches called for May 28, from the Angel de la Independencia to the Zócalo, and in the one on June 10. They also agreed to continue with the information brigades and to hold another group assembly on May 26.

Friday, May 19, 2006

The Demon of Will

Originally published in Spanish by La Jornada
*******************************
Translated by irlandesa



The Demon of Will


Guillermo Almeyra*


It is time to close ranks in order to secure the release of all the prisoners, to the very last one, who have been brutally and arbitrarily jailed, as well as to secure the condemnation of the rapists, torturers, those who invaded properties and the kidnappers, and to expose those highly placed who ordered the violations of law and the murders in Sicartsa and in San Salvador Atenco. That is our primary task. But at the same time we have two other fundamental tasks: protecting our flank from other provocations and assessing what the tactical and strategic errors of the popular sector have been, in order to reorganize and reinforce it, and to discuss the ideological bases of the lynching of an unarmed policeman, which was used so much by television as an excuse for fascist attacks. Because the “strategy of tension” which the government is employing is not going to stop, instead it will be increasingly on the agenda - and now Calderón is saying that AMLO is behind Marcos’ mask - in order to extend the provocations as far as popular reaction will allow it.

Will is the worst of advisors. It is irresponsible to say, like Marcos, “screw the correlation of forces” (in a speech at UNAM), or to publish, in Rebeldía, “we agree, we’ll overthrow the government, we’ll throw the rich out, we’ll change the country” (something like Fox’s 15 minutes to resolve the Chiapas issue), or, as he repeated each time during his trip, “we’ll expropriate the banks,” “we’ll throw the rich out to Miami,” “we’ll overthrow the government.” It is irresponsible to maintain that the Other Campaign “stopped the construction of La Parota” – thus displacing the Guerrero ejiditarios and comuneros who are still confronting that construction – or made San Salvador Atenco visible.

The correlation of forces is fundamental, and attaining objectives depends on it and on the times, on combining, through alliances, with other sectors - with which one certainly has differences, but the differences are fewer than the points in common - and on the patient building of conscience and of organization in their own ranks. It is impossible, for example, not to see that the popular sector is confronting, and will inevitably be confronting, repression from the State, which is in the hands of exploiters (not of the “rich,” many of whom can be innocuous). It is a mistake to not put the Sicartsa situation alongside the one in Atenco, and, meanwhile, alongside the attempt to ethically lynch Elena Poniatowska or AMLO. It is delusory to ignore the national strike by 5 million workers and the breach between large numbers of the union leadership and the government with the argument that are all charros. It is absurd to appropriate the defense of the prisoners in San Salvador Atenco when, on the contrary, the broadest front possible must be constructed in defense of democratic rights and the Constitution.

It is irresponsible to “screw the correlation of forces” and to ignore the fact that the adversary thinks and acts, he has the power and he will defend it. That ignorant and arrogant advice led to confrontation (machetes against more powerful weapons) in order to defend eight florists whose situation could have been negotiated and, in any event, should not have led to providing an excuse for deaths, rapes, illegal searches, hundreds of prisoners, dozens of wounded, to the division of Atenco residents, to many of them fleeing. There are two reasons for the lynching of a fallen policeman (whose image was repeated ad nauseum on television and which, naturally, did not then lead to the savage images of repression). The main cause is hate, which has been well earned by the repressive organizations and their brutality (Sicartsa is the most recent case), which has now led to other acts of savagery such as the burning of police in various neighborhoods. But the other reason is lack of political conscience and of the idea of what the correlation of forces is.

And that is a problem of the Other Campaign and of the left. The end does not justify the means. You cannot fight the bourgeoisie with their own savage methods. Blind violence and hate should be eradicated, especially since we are fighting not just against capitalism and its horrors, but because we also want to build a new human being and a just society. Even if they were to impose war upon us, nothing, however, would justify torture, irregularities against enemy prisoners. In addition, it is a terrible commanding officer – and leads to bloody disasters - who only understands orders to advance and attack, and who does not take into account the media and immediate consequences of his actions.

The social movements in Mexico, without exception, from the indigenous of Chiapas and the rest of the country to the workers and campesinos, are going to great effort, on the other hand, to demonstrate that their struggles are not only legitimate but they are also legal. Those of La Parota, for example, insist that no one consulted them, that no environmental studies were conducted, that thousands of ejidos will be flooded, etcetera. Workers are seeking to defend their union independence, campesinos are asking for reform. In order to “overthrow the government (and) throw the rich (out of the country)” it is therefore necessary to violate neither consciences nor the times. To create consensus, to make alliances, to discuss how, with what, when, with whom. It is not fair to appear on Televisa with Loret de Mila, smoking, sprawled in an armchair as if at home, calmly answering insidious questions like a friend while, at the same time, calling for risky actions, “screwing correlation of forces,” because the bodies, whether for bullets or rape, are also being contributed by others.


[* Dr. Almeyra is a professor at UAM-Xochimilco, and, among an abundance of other accomplishments, is providing a workshop next month in conjunction with Mexico Solidarity Network (http://www.mexicosolidarity.org/Study%20Abroad/Syllabus/index.html) .]

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Interview with Marcos by Bellinghausen

[La Jornada]
Martes 9 de mayo de 2006

ENTREVISTA / SUBCOMANDANTE INSURGENTE MARCOS, DEL EJERCITO ZAPATISTA DE LIBERACION NACIONAL

Los medios electrónicos tienen amarrados a los candidatos

"Los conflictos ya están. La Otra Campaña los hace visibles"

En la primera entrevista que concede en cinco años a un medio de información, el delegado Zero considera que el cambio, que es inevitable, no será violento con La Otra Campaña

HERMANN BELLINGHAUSEN /I


Actualmente el Estado nacional mexicano atraviesa una grave crisis, donde la clase política en su conjunto ha dejado de representar a la sociedad, y ese vacío está siendo llenado, torpemente, por los grandes consorcios de comunicación, que ni siquiera están preparados para ello. "Antes, la clase política gobernaba a los medios, luego en el periodo de crisis gobernó con los medios, y ahora es gobernada por ellos. O sea, ningún medio de comunicación masiva va a permitir que nadie de la clase política se salga del huacal", dice el subcomandante Marcos en extensa entrevista con La Jornada, la primera que concede en cinco años.
Considera que ningún candidato presidencial ofrece una solución a esta crisis del Estado. Madrazo propone un imposible regreso al pasado criminal; Calderón la instauración del fascismo, sacando al Ejército y la policía a las calles, y López Obrador un Estado que sea funcional al capitalismo (aunque se dice de izquierda), estableciendo una nueva estructura, que será autoritaria y no resolverá los problemas de los de abajo.
Considera que esta situación es insostenible, y que todos juntos caerán más pronto que tarde. Insiste en que el movimiento de La Otra Campaña es civil y pacífico; que es la única posibilidad de que el cambio, que es inevitable, no sea violento.
Desmiente las interpretaciones de que por donde pasan Marcos y La Otra Campaña surgen conflictos. "Los conflictos ya están. La Otra Campaña los hace visibles". Niega también que él haya desencadenado los hechos en Atenco. De ser así, ironiza, la resistencia "habría salido bien". Al respecto, dice que los medios electrónicos azuzaron el uso de la fuerza y construyeron una versión que de cualquier manera la gente de abajo no cree.
-Hay quien asegura que La Otra Campaña hace el juego a la derecha, que dinamita el camino de la opción de izquierda a la Presidencia, o sea López Obrador ¿Es cierto, o qué busca La Otra Campaña?
-Primero, no es cierto que muchísima gente piense que AMLO es la opción de izquierda. La Otra Campaña, a la hora que está criticando la clase política, ve de abajo hacia arriba. Dice éstos son los problemas, éste es el sistema, y siempre aparece la clase política como corresponsable o como correa de transmisión de esa injusticia, de ese despojo, de ese crimen, de esa represión, y no importa qué partido político sea. Lo señalamos en Yucatán con Acción Nacional; en Quintana Roo, Campeche, Veracruz con el PRI. Dijimos los nombres, aquí son éstos, de tal partido. Pero como hasta ahora el negocio era pegarle a López Obrador, lo único que sacaban los medios de comunicación eran las críticas a AMLO y los demás lo omitían.
-Pero al arranque de la otra, desde el año pasado, fue percibido como que el blanco eran AMLO y el PRD.
-El EZLN fue vinculado al PRD desde antes y tenía que marcar su distancia. Esto no sólo tiene que ver con el PRD, sino que también va contra toda la clase política. Porque siempre estaba la diferenciación; se critica a la clase política, pero al PRD se le pone aparte. Desde 1994 ni siquiera era el PRD, era Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas.
-Bueno, con él hay una cercanía en 94.
-Sí, pero cuando va Cárdenas a Chiapas, se le deja aparte y se hace la crítica al PRD. Siempre ha habido esta relación; ahora lo que se trata es de incluir a toda la clase política en nuestra crítica, aun el PRD. Teníamos que señalarlo porque la historia anterior era diferente. Siempre hacíamos esta distinción, éstos no, éstos a lo mejor sí, éstos tal vez.
"Teníamos que hacer la denuncia de que toda la clase política estaba en ese juego y que se podían hacer distinciones de matices, pero finalente su traducción en una propuesta política no tenía ningún impacto. ¿Cuál es la diferencia de que Calderón sea un Hitler en potencia y que Madrazo sea un criminal y que López Obrador sea un embaucador? ¿Porque uno roba y el otro no roba, si finalmente el proceso de destrucción de nuestra nación es el mismo? No se traduce en una diferencia práctica. A la hora de que la otra campaña dice 'vamos a mirar hacia abajo', entonces lo que está pasando arriba pasa a segundo plano.
"Antes de decidir mirar hacia abajo, hay una valoración de lo que pasa arriba, y uno puede decir 'no, pues es que hay un rencor del EZLN o de Marcos por lo que pasó con la ley indígena'. No sólo fue la ley indígena, sino todo lo que ha seguido después, de cómo las leyes son aprobadas por mayoría; algunas alcanzan nota en el periódico o en las noticias por el escándalo, como lo de la ley Televisa, pero otras no. Las que van realmente sobre los fundamentos de la soberanía nacional han pasado por unanimidad de todos los partidos políticos.
"Entonces de qué sirve diferenciar que AMLO es honesto, que no se roba el dinero (aunque su grupo sí) y el otro de derecha descarada, el otro de derecha moderada, éste es de derecha vergonzante. De qué sirve si finalmente toda esa crisis está ocurriendo.

En otro momento de la charla Foto Víctor Camacho
"Habíamos explicado antes que en la vieja política estaba concentrado todo en el poder presidencial, pero a la hora que se da esta crisis en el Estado nacional, por el avance del neoliberalismo, se destruye la clase política, se desplaza.
"Primero que se entienda esto: teníamos que hacer un deslinde especial del PRD porque en nuestra historia anterior hacíamos la distinción con los otros. Esto no afectó para que, a la hora en que López Obrador iba ser desaforado, nos opusimos y llamamos a movilizarnos contra el desafuero. Por lo que significaba, era una oposición ética. Nosotros no estamos de acuerdo con esta gente, pero tampoco estamos de acuerdo con lo que le hacen. Esta era nuestra posición ante el desafuero, porque una cosa es una cosa y otra cosa es otra cosa. En ese caso se trataba de dejarlo fuera de la jugada."
-Pero mucha gente insiste en que los dueños del dinero quieren hacer a un lado a AMLO. No quieren que sea él porque lo ven como una amenaza a la hegemonía del capital. Esa es la insistencia de que todo lo que se diga contra AMLO favorece a la derecha.
-Eso no es cierto: el hombre más poderoso de este país, Carlos Slim, ya le prometió que va a traer el beisbol aquí, que no nomás va a traer equipos de futbol, y AMLO se precia de que lleva una buena relación con Slim.
-De todos modos los medios...
-Ese es otro problema. Los medios de comunicación electrónica no quieren perder lo que ganaron, sin luchar, a la hora en la que se dio la crisis en el Estado nacional. Antes, la clase política gobernaba a los medios, luego en este periodo de crisis gobernó con los medios y ahora es gobernada por ellos. O sea, ningún medio de comunicación masiva va a permitir que nadie de la clase política se salga del huacal. Se trata de que obedezca, que vaya por la línea que le están marcando. Y si AMLO o Calderón, o Madrazo o Patricia Mercado o Campa o el Dr. Simi, cualquiera de ellos se sale y pretende tomar decisiones sin los medios de comunicación, entonces lo van a acorralar. Y se da todo este proceso de desgaste entre los medios y AMLO.
-¿Lo están domesticando?
-Sí, lo están domando, a él y a toda la clase política. "Se lo digo a Juana para que lo entienda Chana." No temen a una posición de izquierda, sino a una posición que no obedezca sus indicaciones y AMLO lo que está diciendo es "voy a administrar todo, incluyendo esto". López Obrador está ofreciendo una "nueva administración", es la posición política más avanzada que hay allá arriba y que no se nota porque éste está entre que las chachalacas y en el mismo juego. O sea, si Madrazo propone la imposible vuelta al pasado, lo único que hará es que el país acabe de destruirse; Calderón propone la mano dura, el fascismo, sacar el Ejército a las calles y la policía a todos los lugares y a gobernar con la fuerza represiva del Estado y no con leyes ni nada, aunque él dice que con leyes.
-Bueno, con las leyes que están haciendo...
-La propuesta de López Obrador es hacer un Estado nuevo, o sea el otro ya se destruyó: él no piensa regresar al Estado priísta, al populista y todo eso; dice la cosa está tan mal, que lo que se necesita es otro que no toque los fundamentos del sistema capitalista; un Estado moderno que administre esa crisis para mantener las cosas dentro de cauce; es la misma propuesta que hizo Lula en Brasil. Pero el gran capital dice que no hay problema; los gringos, que son los que mandan en este país, el Departamento de Estado estadunidense, dice que no hay problema; los bancos dicen que no hay problema, Slim dice que no hay problema. Los que dicen que hay problema son los medios de comunicación porque éste no obedece. Tienen miedo de haberlo alentado tanto que se sienta fuerte y quiera desprenderse de ellos; ése es el juego con las encuestas.
-Pero desde el desafuero...
-El desafuero lo mandó para arriba, o sea la mejor forma de promover a AMLO fue el desafuero.
-Lo estaban atacando no tuvo el efecto que querían, pero lo estaban atacando.
-Es que ya los medios no tienen la fuerza que tenían antes. Esto que explicaba de cómo se da la crisis en la clase política, los medios de comunicación ocupan un espacio que antes no tenían y no están preparados tampoco. Entonces lo que hacen es abrazar a la clase política y van a caer junto con ella. A la hora que la clase política pierde autoridad, legitimidad, los medios que los abrazan caen junto con ellos en su credibilidad.
"Salimos de Chapingo con mil gentes"
-¿Qué está pasando con lo de Atenco?
-Es un caso ejemplar. Yo estuve viendo la televisión, la radio, y todo era "acaben con ellos". En la marcha salimos de Chapingo con mil gentes, y llegamos a Atenco con 5 mil. ¿De dónde salieron esos 4 mil? Era gente de ahí. No había manifestaciones de repudio. Al revés, eran de adhesión; órale sí, no hay que dejarse. Eso ya lo habíamos visto desde la marcha de 2001, cuando los medios estaban en que la paz y no sé qué y la gente empezó a saludar al EZLN, a los indígenas, a contrapelo de los medios.
"Cuando abrazan a la clase política, los medios abandonan una actitud crítica, cuestionadora, que es el deber de todo medio y convierten la comunicación en un intercambio de opiniones. De un tiempo para acá, los columnistas políticos comentan lo que dice otro medio de comunicación, no lo que está pasando. Hasta que la realidad revienta, como en Atenco."
-Pero Atenco fue real, los medios mostraban escenas reales y fue un hecho muy grave, hubo mucha violencia; mucha gente sufrió y equivalió a que se atacara un pueblo.
-No, el proceso de desarrollo fue así, porque yo vi Tv Azteca y escuché las estaciones de radio. Cuando se da el primer enfrentamiento, o sea cuando a los policías les va mal, la televisora empieza a decir "cómo es posible, que entre la policía". Ellos estaban clamando porque hubiera una acción fuerte contra Atenco. Por supuesto se da el ataque, y a la hora que se ve en las imágenes en los medios electrónicos, se presentan sólo las del pueblo cuando está golpeando a los policías, y no lo que los policías hicieron. Tampoco aparece la parte de que los medios azuzaron esa acción represiva. Los locutores estaban diciendo "esto no puede permitirse que lo vea nuestra gente (aunque estaban pasando las imágenes), tiene que intervenir la autoridad y tiene que poner orden y hacerlo duro". Al final estaban leyendo las cartas donde su auditorio dice "¿cómo se les ocurre decir eso, que si llega la policía va a ser peor?", y dejaron de leer las cartas porque todas eran contra los que ellos decían.
"A la hora que se dice 'son una bola de alborotadores y violentos' y no sé qué contra Ignacio del Valle y los compas de Atenco y del Frente de Pueblos en Defensa de la Tiertra (FPDT), sólo se presentan las imágenes de que ellos son los agresores, no lo que pasó después. Después de eso es la marcha de Chapingo a Atenco. Después de la campaña de miedo. Llega un momento en que esto de los medios tiene su límite. La gente dice: 'son los mismos que me humillan' o sea, a quién va a convencer que un pobre policía es agredido si es el que lo extorsiona, el que lo golpea o la viola."
-Pero se dice que ahora que estamos en la democracia, la policía responde a gobiernos legítimos y, por tanto, hay que estar con la policía contra los violentos de Atenco.
-Eso lo dicen allá arriba, abajo no. Qué legitimidad puede tener la policía del estado de México o de la ciudad. No ha hecho una sola acción en beneficio de la comuniad. Todos en México, allá abajo, lo saben. Por eso cada vez refuerzan más los aparatos policiacos, porque cada vez pueden menos.
-También se dice que lo de Atenco fue azuzado por Marcos.
-Si hubiera estado organizado se habría hecho bien. Hay una imagen que es elemental, que es cuando están pateando al policía.
"Sí, tú dices: "Esa gente está enojada y fuera de control". Por tanto, no está organizada; cualquiera hubiera dicho mejor agárrenlo, amárrenlo y llévenselo. Lo entregan, lo catean o lo que sea. Pero de nada sirve que lo pateen, ¿para qué?
"En el caso de la barranca de Los Sauces (Cuernavaca), paramos el desalojo; en el caso de La Parota, lo paramos, en el caso de la gasolinera en Cuautla se puso en stand by. Y en otras muchas partes, que son muchos de los lugares donde hemos ido, donde ningún candidato presidencial lo ha hecho, no ha pasado nada. O ha pasado por existir una lógica del conflicto. No es cierto eso de que donde yo llego provoco conflictos. No estaríamos hablando aquí, estaríamos hablando en el castillo de Chapultepec."
-Una corriente de opinión afirmaba La Otra Campaña no existe, Marcos está para abajo. Y ahora resulta que Atenco resucita al muerto, le da oxígeno a Marcos y a La Otra Campaña y está en los medios, porque es donde existen las cosas. La Otra Campaña no estaba, luego entonces no existía. Ahora ya está, Marcos se salió con la suya.
-¿Cuál es la mía?
-Estar en los medios, según los medios.
-Pero si todos los medios están en contra, por qué voy a querer yo estar en los medios que hablan en contra mío.
-¿No están castigando a La Otra Campaña en Atenco?
-Te voy a decir a quién están castigando: a López Obrador. Te voy a decir qué fue lo que pasó. El FPDT hizo lo que todo adherente de La Otra Campaña hace, que es apoyar a otro. Siempre aparecen estos compañeros con su consignas, dicen ánimo cantan canciones y se van. Entonces están los compañeros floreros que van a la reunión en el mitin de Atenco y hablan y dicen nos quieren hacer esto, el gobierno perredista.
"Los compañeros del FPDT les aconsejan dialogar, ellos tratan, van a buscar al presidente municipal, para que no los desalojen, para que les dé un espacio, él no los recibe, los amenazan con el desalojo y el compa Nacho del Valle y todos los demás hacen lo que hacen siempre, se juntan y se ponen junto a ellos y siempre cargan su machete como nosotros cargamos nuestro pasamontañas. Estando ahí , ya sea porque le pagaron, o por idiota. El presidente municipal de Texcoco cerca de los floristas y al grupo de Nacho, y amenaza con desalojarlos. Ve que son pocos y el presidente municipal en una entrevista de radio dice "Yo pedí el apoyo de la seguridad pública del estado". Los que están en Atenco ven que sus compañeros están cercados y cierran carreteras para que los dejen libres."
"Todo esto pasa con el presidente municipal del PRD, que es de izquierda, democrático y que es la salvación del país. Llega la policía a desalojarlos y se mete hasta el pueblo, la gente de ahí reacciona, los golpea y los hecha para atrás. Viene la campaña de medios "acaben con ellos, cómo es posible el desorden y todo" y entonces se da la entrada y toda la crueldad extrema de la policía y se empieza a manejar que fue el pueblo y que no sé qué. Ahora ya se está diciendo que no, que en realidad la brutalidad vino de la policía, no de la población, que hay mujeres violadas, niños desaparecidos (ahí tengo los nombres, cinco menores de edad)."
-De eso no se ha hablado.
-Bueno, pues se supone que había algunos chiquitos sueltos, no aparecen y dice la mamá que nos tocó ahí en Atenco, que y uno está en Almoloya. Ella dice que está ahí, que lo golpearon mucho.
"Y entonces se dice, 'bueno, pues si es Atenco y el PRD, sobre López Obrador'. A los tres equipos de campaña no les importa si hubo muertos, ni si hubo balazos o violaciones, sino cómo se capitaliza electoralmente. Entonces el equipo de López Obrador hace el cálculo 'deslíndate, no tienes nada que ver'. Ni siquiera dice si estuvo mal la policía o estuvo mal. 'No son tuyos, no digas nada.' No importa si hubo mujeres violadas, si hay muertos, no importa si hay violación a los derechos humanos. A los otros les dicen: 'tú di que sí, que es lo que hay que hacer' y eso lo deciden Calderón y Madrazo.
"Hasta ahí van las cosas, van contra el PRD, contra AMLO. Esta es la puntilla, si le colgamos a López Obrador Atenco, lo bajamos en las encuestas. Como ya toda la clase política está de acuerdo en que las encuestas deciden, no las urnas, pues entonces ahí ya quedamos."
-Incluido López Obrador.
-El fue el que empezó con eso.
"Y entonces resulta que cuando ya está así la jugada, hay una marcha en la que aparece Marcos junto con la comisión sexta, con La Otra Campaña, que crece a contracorriente de los medios de comunicación y de la clase política. Y hay un giro en las declaraciones, para todos los candidatos es 'que si Marcos, que si el EZLN, que si van a capitalizar y no se qué' y es cuando Marcos dice 'me quedo y voy a hacer lo que no había hecho hasta ahorita que es dar entrevistas'.
"Por eso brincan. Ahora nos viene a hacer revoltutra en la sopa que tenemos, menos López Obrador, que dice, 'no yo no'. Pero Calderón y Madrazo dicen 'no, aplíquenle la ley, la ley Cocopa', también dicen. No les preocupaba que estuviera aparte, aunque fueran muchos, mientras no salieran en los medios electrónicos. Si ahora va a salir en los medios entonces se envidenciará la crisis de la clase política, la falta de propuestas. 'Es nuestro derrumbe', piensan.

© Derechos Reservados 1996-2005 DEMOS, Desarrollo de Medios, S.A. de C.V.Todos los Derechos Reservados.Derechos de Autor 04-2005-011817321500-203.

Monday, May 08, 2006

Call for Encuentro

Los Adherentes a La Sexta Declaración de la Selva Lacandona en Chiapas, Considerando:

Ø Que en las actividades de La Otra Campaña nos hemos propuesto construir el Plan Nacional de Lucha y una Nueva Constitución;

Ø Los acuerdos del Encuentro Estatal Contra la Represión celebrado el 9 y 10 de abril pasados, que incluyen preparar un Encuentro Estatal hacia el Plan Nacional de Lucha; Ø Los acontecimientos de represión que se vienen sucediendo desde el 3 de mayo, en contra de los compañeros de San Salvador Atenco y otros adherentes a la Sexta Declaración en el Distrito Federal,

CONVOCAMOS al

Encuentro Estatal en Chiapas de La Otra Campaña hacia el Plan Nacional de Lucha

Que se llevará a cabo del 16 al 18 de junio de 2006, en las instalaciones del CIDECI-Unitierra en San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas (Camino Viejo a Chamula sin número, Colonia Nueva Maravilla en la zona norte de la ciudad-). El viernes 16 será la llegada y la instalación del Encuentro, el sábado 17 se desarrollarán los trabajos y el domingo 18 se tomarán los acuerdos y la clausura.

Objetivos:

Ø Analizar el contexto en el que se ha desarrollado la primera etapa de La Otra Campaña, particularmente las acciones de represión en contra de los adherentes.
Ø Reunir las propuestas de las organizaciones e individuos adherentes para que sean incluidos en el Plan Nacional de Lucha.
Ø Acordar acciones y formas de coordinación entre los adherentes a La Otra Campaña en los estatal y nacional.

Solicitamos a todos los participantes para la preparación de este Encuentro:

1.- Compartir esta convocatoria con las organizaciones e individuos adherentes en sus regiones.
2.- Que se realicen acciones para juntar dinero para el pasaje de los delegados de su organización y si es posible, apoyar con los gastos del Encuentro.
3.- Preparar reuniones previas en su región o en su organización, considerando los siguientes temas:

a) Cuáles son las luchas, las demandas y las propuestas de sus organizaciones que deben estar incluidos en el Plan Nacional de Lucha.

b) Qué pensamos de cada uno de los 6 puntos que surgieron en la Plenaria de La Garrucha, al final de los encuentros preparativos:

1. De la ratificación, ampliación o modificación de las características de la Otra Campaña propuestas en la Sexta Declaración.
2. Quiénes están convocados y quiénes no.
3. Sobre la estructura organizativa de La Otra Campaña.
4. Del lugar especial de las diferencias: indígenas, mujeres, otros amores, jóvenes, niños y otros.
5. De la posición de la Otra Campaña frente a otros esfuerzos organizativos.
6. De las tareas inmediatas (difusión e información) política nacional/organización general.

c) Qué propuestas tenemos para una mejor coordinación de los adherentes de La Otra Campaña en Chiapas y con los adherentes del resto del país.

d) Qué propuestas tenemos para apoyar y solidarizarnos con los compañeros adherentes que son reprimidos en Chiapas y en el país.

Convocan: Adherentes a la Sexta Declaración y a La Otra Campaña en Chiapas.