The meek want the Earth now: Zapatista economic autonomy
By Betsty Bowman and Bob Stone (Mar 24, 2006)


Part 2 (Part 1, on the Brazilian economy, was published Mar 17, 2006)

Although Mexico's Zapatistas no longer occupy land to stimulate land reform, they have plotted a complementary strategy. Novelist Carlos Fuentes explains that prior to the 1994 uprising, the traditional, indigenous autonomy had been broken in Chiapas by "a succession of rapacious governors allied to equally rapacious land owners and cattle barons." Made to work for pennies on land historically belonging to their villages-as in Zapata's time-the indigenous people of Chiapas united to demand land, food and, above all, dignity.

Surrounded by the military, at first the people survived on outside donations of corn. This experience made clear the need for productive "communities in resistance." The landmark 1996 San Andrés Accords with the government extended a form of autonomy to 57 distinct indigenous peoples. Yet, despite popular support the Congress mutilated the agreement. Zapatistas asked why they had to ask the government's permission to establish autonomy. Having spent 22 months negotiating, they enacted the Accords, counting (correctly) on support throughout Mexico.

Economic autonomy consists first of producing for producers' own needs, then for cash-free barter with nearby resistant communities, and only thereafter for outside sale of surpluses. "Spaces of dignity" are set up: community-run producer and consumer co-ops, schools and pharmacies. Producers and consumers-the two sides of human economies that markets separate-are thereby reconnected. Although bartering ensures self-sufficiency in terms of food supply, some cash is also needed. Coffee is the main source of this income. The Mut Vitz Coffee Cooperative, a network of 28 producer communities and 6 autonomous municipalities, markets about 15 containers a year. Communities close to roads benefit a bit more. Contributions from nongovernment organizations, a second source of cash, are used to redistribute wealth. 

Collective autonomy is thus created. In 2003 it took political form in self-governing caracoles, literally, snail shells. The snail's inwardly turned shell signals both self-sufficiency and the Zapatistas' rotating leadership that includes everyone by mandar obedeciendo, obedient leading. Sheer survival of such communities establishes that one can live in a world outside corporate globalization. Zapatista strategy has thus become essentially nonviolent, and firearms are used for defense only, since it is sufficient to outlast one's adversaries.

Convergence?

Do these innovations in Brazil and Mexico converge? The MST (the focus of our March 17 article) reverses the neoliberal, industrialized, export-based monoculture. The MST (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra; see www.mstbrazil.org) aims first at a vida digna: meeting basic needs for health, education, housing, drinkable water and nourishing food. 

Its own model is cooperative production with appropriate technologies, free of chemicals or seeds marketed by transnationals, and hence "organic." But meeting material needs is not enough, Gerardo Fontes emphasizes: "If it were, Sweden would be socialist paradise! But we know from Sweden's high rates of alcoholism and suicide that it is not. So the MST seeks a reversal in values where solidarity comes before individualism and cooperation replaces competition as the motor of social life."

Dignidad and una vida digna are also among the Zapatistas's goals. Whereas the national liberation struggles of the 1960s had aimed at state power while postponing many social changes (hierarchy, racism, homophobia, and so on), Zapatistas aim directly at them. The idea is "to change the world without taking power." As Mexico's electoral rhetoric heats up, the Zapatistas's "Other Campaign" aims not at any specific policy but rather at a new way of doing politics "from below." By refusing vanguard roles, Zapatistas bet their example will inspire others. "We came to release a demand that could unleash others," spokesperson Marcos admits. Raising cash by kidnapping is rejected, Marcos explains, since "we do not believe that the end justifies the means. Ultimately, we believe that the means are the end. We define our goal by the way we choose the means of struggling for it."

A showdown may be ahead. Brazil's and Mexico's elites would like the MST and the Zapatistas to disappear. Their survival up to now is due only to mass, if quiet, support. Will Brazil, with no tradition of revolution, and Mexico, with one, lead us into the future? Contingencies block any foresight. 

One such factor is the land tenure and general property system settled upon. Modern nations recognize three kinds of property: private property of individuals; public property administered by governments; and social property held in common by couples, associations, co-ops and partnerships. But which mix of these will yield relations of production best suited to optimal satisfaction of the needs of all humans? For 20 years neoliberals have pushed individual property, leaving the social good to the market's "invisible hand." This has patently failed. So has the attempt to meet individual needs wielding public property. The question then arises: Do experiments by the MST and the Zapatistas indicate it is time to try production relations in which social property predominates, with public and private property relegated to subordinate roles?

Historically, change is afoot, maybe a postcapitalist mode of production. Formulating it awaits a new Marx or Keynes. Our final article on the recent World Social Forum in Venezuela will draw together our cases of survival under neoliberal policies and try to outline the future they indicate.