Oaxaca Update: Some Political Analysis

The most current Oaxaca update I've found yet... I'm going to keep looking throughout the day, so forgive the constant plan edits.

This is interesting because it describes some protester tactics. Bottle rockets with nails? Shit yo. It is the Post, but I think that is accurate because I read on the Universidad radio transcripts people requesting people to bring bottles (for gasoline) and fireworks.

Political Analysis

I've been doing main "reporting" on Oaxaca, for the most part. No real political analysis. This is because the events are happening, and that is what I think is most important, really, not what it "means". But as I've been uncovering more information, and reading more about the background of what is happening and politics in Mexico in general, there is some stuff I think that should be taken in mind when hearing about what is going on. That is, it is how I take it in mind, and therefore I offer it to you as a way that you might take it, although you no dobut have your own ways of understanding politics, history, etc.

I think that every person probably has some "political" (in the sense of "actionable thought", something that may make you take an action of some sort) response when they heard about something that has happened, even if this response is uninterest or nothing at all. You have to form an opinion about things, even if your opinion is materially empty. With Oaxaca and most history, I think what is most important is that people hear about it so that they can form this opinion. I hate how history like this tends to just sink in the flood of information and whatever else that fills up our american lives, and get forgotten or never even heard of to begin with. Even if you have no real thought about it after hearing about it, I would rather that [you] hear about this rather than other stuff that's going on in the world, because I think it particularly has the potential to create important opinions regarding the way states, peoples, and power interact. Then again, maybe not. That's for you to decide.

I'm hoping, that once you do hear about it, you will in fact have an opinion with content, perhaps even rich with content. Maybe you don't become an anarchist/activist/martyr/whatever, but maybe you will stop and reflect on what sort of conditions would lead to such a situation, and take that to heart if/when the time comes that you have to opportunity to make some sort of a decision that is relevant to a similar/analogous situation. Again, maybe you won't do this at all, but hey, at least I tried.

If you're still reading, hooray! Maybe you are interested! (It actually doesn't matter anyway, cause this is all for me and not you, so there).

So, this article is a perfect example of what I'm NOT interested in by way of "being political" (actionable thought). You can read it if you want, it is somewhat interesting. But to summerize, it is basically a call to arms by some Trotskyite organization, and it is stupid. (The best part reads: "Let us pass from declarations to deeds. Let us vote on a tentative date now!" Who let that be published?) I'm not even really interested in an anarchist pro-APPO position either, which is the direction indymedia and infoshop and the Other Campaign are coming from. I probably sympathize with anarchists more than any other political "position" (thats a whole other story) but I'm not convinced that the APPO even self-indentify as anarchists, despite the "circle-a"'s in the local Oaxaca graffitti. It's really hard to determine who the APPO is, actually. Their website (while being suprisingly Flash-y... I wonder who is behind their technological setup? The Universidad radio is somehow also simulcast on the internet even though the power to the University was cut) doesn't translate into english, and all secondary reports just mention vague things about solidarity and non-violence.

Point is, its hard to say anything real about what the "politics" (in the usual sense of the term, more like ideology) of the situation is. The only thing that is definite about the situation is that people are fighting against each other for "control" of an area, and alot of people are being hurt. (an interesting discussion along these lines is going down on the wikipedia talk page of the APPO article.)

Now, some people would choose to side with the police in favor of "law and order" (my favorite tv show) and some would side with the people in favor of "freedom", or "liberty", or something else, and that is how those people would form an actionable thought of the situation, and form their opinion, in the lack of any ideological basis for sympathies. Not necessarily a bad way to form an opinion.

But what I think is really interesting is that while the institutional forces in the situation, the government, the police, the political parties, the richer classes, are all interested in basically resolving the situation with some stability of power (even the Trotskyite communique wanted to form a movement out of what's going on, and so does the stated goal of the APPO) the people who are actually facing off against the government and their paramilitary gangs in the streets are interested in fighting. Pretty much just straight up. They want autonomy, sure, but these demands only arose after they were confronted, first when cops arrived back in June, and then recently this weekend as they were pushed out of the Zocalo. Before that it was a teacher strike. Now the strike is unimportant, and they are fighting for "ground". First it was the Zocalo, then the University. It's not property, like their homes or fields or stuff, but literally the ground beneath their feet and the streets of their city. I don't know if they have some well-defined notion of what this ground means to them or not, or whether they have a fully developed critique of how their are tired of being opressed by the social and political institutions and now they are fighting back. But its almost the most radical (in the sense of the root) sort of class-consciousness that could exist; some sort of unconscious (not in the technical sense) thinking process that decides NOW is the time when they won't just go home, but they will tear down their beautiful city to make a point, some sort of point, about their claims to do what they want to it. Maybe its all just some sort of mob group-think; that is totally possible. But you would think that under pressure of basically ever institution abandoning them to the violence of police and army force, if it was just a sort of spur of the moment thing, it would easily be dispelled once people starting getting killed. The mob would turn and run. But it didn't for some reason, it only dug in and fought harder. Maybe they felt they didn't have anywhere to go, or maybe they underwent some sort of suicidal pscyhosis, or maybe they are brainwashed by their own ideals and slogans into thinking they are morally correct. Who knows? It doesn't really matter why, because probably its a combination, and different for different people.

But what we know is that they aren't giving up. And the government, if it wants to retain control over Oaxaca, can't give up either. So what is going to happen? Will the government simply kill or arrest everyone? Its happened before. Or will the government give up, and give Oaxaca some sort of autonomous control over itself? What will the people do then, once they have to clean up their own city and figure out how to govern themselves? Or will something else happen? I really don't know, and don't want to guess, because I don't see any really awesome answers rising out of this war.

The one conclusion I can come to is that I support the people above all. Not knowing why they fight, I still support them simply because they are fighting. If a people is going to put themselves into a horrible war even at a disadvantage, with no weapons, all over some sense of a ground, I don't think anyone can tell them that they are wrong for any real reason, just it is difficult to say precisely why they might be right. Maybe they are going about it all wrong, or maybe they are just gangs roving a city looking for violence (although I doubt that). But, it is completely obvious that sending a police state to fight them is not a legitimate answer, and therefore the attacking of that police force becomes the only answer now. I'm not saying this is their thought process, I'm saying it is mine. If the police cared about law and order, they would not have attacked the Zocalo to begin with. Now it is too late. If any one does care about law and order they would stop parading uniformed state officers around, and actually work on resolving the problem. Given that, anyone opposing the police (the police in Oaxaca that is) is merely responding naturally to state oppression. I mean that. Even if they are looting, and spray painting, and burning property. Because the police arrived, all the rest of those small ethics is put to the side. I know that must sound really weird, but I think its true. Because none of those "small" ethics can be fixed right now, not while the police and the APPO (or whoever it is) are fighting. "Polishing the silver on the Titanic" comes to mind. How can you expect to create a just society by oppressing people? Not in the sense that Opression is the opposite of Justice, but in the sense that when you are an institution oppressing a people it is really hard to get them to form a civilized society at the same time. It is illogical, and therefore the opposition of that move becomes the only sensible alternative. If there are to be institutions, fine, but they should not act suprised if the people become unhappy with them to the point that they refuse to cooperate. And once they have refused to cooperate, the institution should cease to exist, because trying to earn cooperation by force, especially violent force, is not going to win them back. For me it really comes down to what makes sense at the time. Right now, the only thing that makes sense is for the state to be repelled until it withdraws, and the violence stops. That is the only way the violence will stop, and therefore it is the only thing to do. This is what most idealists can't understand about resistance, and why their pacifism is stupid. Even if your resistance is non-violent, it must be resistance, and cannot give in, otherwise it ceases to be resistance, and becomes merely an impediment and an obstacle to be cleared. That is not pacifistic. It is this radical reaction of violence (although not necessarily physical violence) that I am talking about, this sort of force which would draw people into the streets and to the barricades, and this is here entirely different than institutional violence (ordered by someone or something) or mob violence (doing it because everyone else is). This is the only kind of violence (I reiterate, not necessarily physical violence) that I support, simply because it is the sort of violence that cannot be opposed, it can only run its course.

This is the opinion that I take away from observing the situation, and I think it is a very important lesson as well. Whether its fully correct, given my blind-observer position, I don't know. And I doubt many other people will reach a similar conclusion, for reasons that I won't speculate on right now. But I do think that it is still important to look at violent situations like this and try to think about why what is happening is happening, and maybe take an opinion away from it. Especially when its so close to home.