Linda D: Badiou, Mexico and How the People Stir
Posted by Mike E on April 1, 2008
Linda D is a Maoist, revolutionary, and artist living in Mexico. She is a founding member of the RCP who left the party during the 1980s. (Click on the picture to the right.)
Oh Man…this is so wild. Spent the last few hours thinking about how I wanted to write you re: López Obrador (AMLO). Returned to my abode, checked in with Kasama first, and found this new post by John Steele re Alain Badiou.
Keep in mind, I’d never heard of Badiou until this moment, but am now anxious to read his writings, as well as yours, about his theories, etc.
Just to excerpt one paragraph from J.S.’s piece, which in my mind dovetailed with what I wanted to share about AMLO:
“What to think? Well, let’s take a more familiar political example. Suppose you are a revolutionary militant or cadre. You have been grasped in your life and activated by a great eruption in the world, and the experience has completely up-ended the conventional system of facts and categories and hierarchies – all that you thought you knew. You have entered into a process of synthesizing and recognizing and establishing new truths in the world, a process which is not just yours, but yours along with many others. I am sure many of us on this site have experienced this, and have entered into such processes, and have had this shape our lives.”
And suppose you are not a revolutionary militant per se, or part of some revolutionary cadre, but through individual and collective experience and struggle, have had your world turned upside down, your life reshaped, etc.
Observations of the Movement around AMLO
Want to preface my comments on AMLO by saying first off–the relevance of the López Obrador phenomena did not “shape my life” in a profound way, but has been a radical rupture in the lives and thinking of many Mexicanos. Something I don’t think can be ignored by the more revolutionary forces, and summarily dismissed because this phenomena unfolded in the sphere of electoral politics. What do we do when the masses are in motion, in this case in their millions? To me this was a struggle that went way beyond electoral politics. Do we join forces with the people, and within that not try and up the ante, or do we simply sit back and mechanically criticize a figure like López Obrador?
During all these years of living in Mexico, I have had only one gringa friend and have always tried to immerse myself AS MUCH AS IS POSSIBLE, in Mexican culture, etc.; definitely amongst the people–including different strata, but mostly among the obreros, campesinos, artisans and indigenous people. This was not done in some conscious way, or to formulate any kind of political line, but those are the people I’ve always gravitated toward, feel an affinity for and am most comfortable with, even with all of their contradictoriness. (And I sure as hell didn’t move to Mexico to be part of some snotty and isolated gringo community–could have moved to Palm Springs for that b.s.)
But something I have observed over the years is — even among the Mexican people who are politically aware, there has been an incredible apathy, acceptance of the status quo (even tho they complain endlessly about it), etc. “Ni modo” (more or less “oh well,” or “c’est la vie”) is undoubtedly the favorite expression of the majority of people. Things suck but what can you do? More currently– after almost a century of their being beaten down, oppressed, exploited, etc., in the last several years, I’ve thought that it’s not always the case, certainly not automatically, that where there’s oppression, there’s resistance. For sure there have been pockets of rebellion, movements and “for real” struggle in Mexico–and historically real revolutionary struggle. (Interestingly enough, Emiliano Zapata, and to some extent Pancho Villa, along with those who were the catalyst for Independence and “revolution” are still very much revered to this day. It’s a big deal w/lots of fireworks and celebrating when Zapata’s or Morelos’, etc. birthday comes around. I would venture to say that the majority of mexicanos know their history–and are not only proud of their more political ancestors, but their pride includes the Mayans, Olmecs, Zapotecs, Purépechas, etc. as well.)
“We’re standing up, we’re rising up…we’re not afraid.”
Back to AMLO…ended up attending many of his rallies– (pre election–even some meetings) — alongside a minimum of 30,000 people–just in Morelia. (Many people traveling for hours in giant buses from all over Michoacán.) Read everything I could get my hands on about him, but more so his platform and program. AMLO became a lightening rod for the people, and people from all strata, but mainly the lower strata, who became active; there was less talk of “ni modo”, and more talk of changing both the economic and political course of Mexico.
And probably more important, at least in my eyes, was–I went from Chiapas to D.F. (Mexico City, Distrito Federal) to participate in a demo after the fraudulent election. I was in the midst of a demonstration with OVER A MILLION PEOPLE!!!! And here’s what moved me no end–the main chant, the main thrust of the demo wasn’t about more bourgeous politics coming from bourg. politicians, or even so much AMLO–what people were in unison about was captured in the din of their unified voice: “We’re standing up, we’re rising up…we’re not afraid.” Secondarily, “We’re with you Peje.”
(At one point I was thinking about Woodstock of all things–because amongst a million people in the AMLO demo, everyone was so kind and helpful to one another, organized, etc., knowing full well that people had differences politically. Along the route of the march to the Zocalo–which I couldn’t even get to because there were so many people–Mexican artists (some famous some not), writers, musicians, etc. had come together and installed these giant — encased pieces of art and writings, reflecting the struggle, that were totally captivating, and spurred the people on.)
Thing was–to me and many others–this had become a struggle as part of the people’s transformation in the ideological sphere (not just another election)…also provided an opportunity to take things further by the conscious forces. This was a real movement, and developed from the bottom up. L.O. also had a lot of credibility amongst the masses because when he was governor (?) of D.F., he actually stood with the people in many cases, against the Mexican gov’t.
(A total aside–while I understand that the revolutionary forces — solid core, etc. in the history of revolution are usually a relatively small core, I think it a grave error to make a principle of that…i.e., their numbers.)
So here’s the thing that I argued as well as united with folks over. While López Obrador became a hero to many, it wasn’t him as an individual that moved people. (Certainly it wasn’t his party, the PRD, who are mostly scumbags.) There was even lots of struggle over the word “populist”–populist in Spanish has a very pejorative connotation. Whether or not L.O. would have been able to affect real change remains to be seen–but his platform, his ideas, his willingness to take on the U.S. and not kiss their friggin’ ass, his proposals about immigration (and exposure of the real enemies of the “migrantes”), his staunch stance against the war in Iraq, and all imperialist wars, ignited the best in people. He didn’t just stir folks up around bread and butter issues (a relatively easy approach in a “third world” country)…and the people united behind him.
There were tons of slanders by the bourg. press here and abroad, likening him to someone who was in Hugo Chavez’ or Fidel’s pocket…but really, the majority of people in Mexico support and identify, and have a history of solidarity with the Cubans and Venezuelans, so this pretty much fell on deaf ears.
Albeit, L.O. was mainly dealing in the electoral sphere, but we’re not talking about Obama…we’re talking about someone who raised the spectre of fighting against and ending oppression and exploitation, extreme poverty, waging class struggle, and that the people could be masters of their own destiny, etc. One has to try and keep in mind the historical context here–the Mexican people have been ruled by PRI for 71 years. I truly believe that the only reason friggin’ pig ass, arch reactionary Fox (Bush’s twin except for the bigote) got in was because he was an (electable) alternative to PRI.
After the fraudulent election, a very dear friend, dared to take on the PRD, and even the pitfalls that L.O. fell into afterwards. He had a polemic published in La Jornada, and a dialogue ensued. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Instead of further mobilizing the masses, and involving the astounding base that L.O. had inspired and amassed, the opportunistic/careerist PRD solely concentrated on the fraudulent elections, and reduced the whole impact of the phenomena in and around L.O. to shit. Everyone knew the election was rigged…so new? But where do we go from here?
Well, L.O. still has some credibility, and I watched him twice recently; his new cause and a worthy fight, is around Calderon’s wanting to DEnationalize (if there is such a word) Pemex…and while Pemex has definitely fallen prey to the INCREDIBLE, out of this world, corruption here, it is still the only (besides electricity) resource that has not been completely taken over by the U.S. and its imperialist allies.
So…while all this was going on, I checked into the RW/Rev. website, because I wanted to see what their position was. Their “analysis” was totally mechanical, and ill-informed. AMLO a reformist, fuck elections, boycott, yada yada…in other words, anything short of calling for the d.o.p., or promoting Bob Avakian, screw it…
Meanwhile, the Zapatistas, from what I read in the more progressive Spanish-speaking press, vacilated on the elections…one minute, boycott, the next…well, we’re not sure, or similar to the RCP, silence on the issues.
About the Zapatistas
But here’s something I want to say about the Zapatistas: while I still of course support them, and much more so the indigenous people of mainly Chiapas (who Marcos claims to represent)– I really think the Zapatistas blew it.
Needless to say, the Zapatistas at first were pretty controversial. (I actually moved here when the Zapatistas initiated their struggle.) At the same time, the majority of people adamently supported the struggle of the indigenous people culturally, against extreme poverty, racism, etc. (Yes, there is racism in Mexico.)
After some years, while the Zapatistas, and especially Marcos, remained an enigma, they finally came out of the jungles, and had a nationwide tour that was extremely powerful and successful. Thousands upon thousands of people, came to their rallies. All the while, Marcos remained suspect–who was he? Where did he come from? Some intellectual, petit bourgeois, opportunist, ??? etc. (or to quote Lenny Bruce, “who was that masked man?”–literally) I actually attended a couple of these rallies–very excited about the whole thing–and invited lots of pals who were not necessarily “political”. “Hey we gotta be there…this is an historic moment!!” So I dressed quasi-incognito ’cause I didn’t want to get deported. My “cover” pretty much blown since for the most part am a head taller than most folk, and was greeted with…”Hola Leenda. ¿que tal?”
Remember seeing a few people, in and out of the bus for the press, knowing full well who the hell they were…but hey fine…good, hope you’re giving a realistic/objective picture of what’s going on…but TOTALLY SUBJECTIVELY have to say, those particular folks mostly had the well-worn arrogant/we’re in the know/we’re important/disconnect sneer on their faces, that we’ve all grown to know and love, and wanting to be seen like they had a real “in”–almost like some starlet who’d just arrived on the RED carpet–literally and figuratively.
Well, the nationwide tour culminated in a huge fight and controversy in el congreso–the reactionary forces trying to bar the Zapatistas from addressing the congress–which only gained the Z’s more support. Their statements to the congress were right on, from what I could glean, and they had broadened their base well beyond the jungles of Chiapas. So then what?–after this incredible momentum, they returned to “their base”, and have practically disappeared. Rumor had it that Marcos was really getting orders from the Peruvians, and was engrossed in study. Whether or not there is any truth to the rumor…is not the point. The point is–the more or less disappearance of the Zapatistas, after a huge groundswell of support, made a whole lot of honest folk very cynical, and while there is still tremendous support for the people within that struggle, the leadership of the Z’s is pretty much viewed as–same ol’ same ol’…and fuck ‘em.
I think this is a tragedy…
Similarities of Error
And without getting into the why’s and wherefore’s of the RCP, I can’t help but think there are some similarities here insofar as some of their practice. I still will continue to read what R. Lotta has to say, and still maintain some respect for him, but when I said that his summation–albeit at the beginnings of, and maybe even the pinnacle of the Zapatistas influence, was “pure fantasy” I wasn’t being snide. Oh goody…armed struggle breaking out in Mexico…therefore…they’re on the brink of revolution. This is what the RCP wanted to see but that wasn’t necessarily what was happening. That still doesn’t mean that the Zapatistas, and moreover, the indigenous people should not be supported. But the Zapatistas are one thing…to me, for an organization that calls itself MLM, to be silent about line struggle in, e.g. Nepal, where a real revolution is taking place — and frankly before that Peru — is criminal.
At any rate, can’t wait to read more of, and about, Badiou. Thanks Steele.
Linda D.
April 1, 2008 at 2:55 pm
This was interesting to me. As some folks know I’ve followed events in Mexico, particularly involving the Zapatistas, pretty closely. I was in Chiapas during the elections and was able to observe one of the huge AMLO rallies in Mexico City as well as a smaller but quite spirited one in Chiapas.
I agree with much of what Linda has to say here. AMLO is better than the PRD (which in Chiapas now includes some of the folks responsible for the Acteal massacre!) and the movement around him was much broader than the PRD. The theft of the election created a situation that was potentially quite explosive and while AMLO and the rest of the PRD were able to keep things tamped down, witnessing these events first-hand has certainly informed some of the changes in my thinking around elections. I was very much struck by how the EZLN’s posture in all this served to isolate them and distort their ability to even get a clear picture of what was happening. The Other Campaign was an interesting attempt to deal with the conundrum of pursuing revolutionary politics in a country with competitive elections and one of the things I admire most about the EZLN is precisely this willingness to experiment (it is worth comparing their different approaches to the elections in 1994, 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2006). And while the Other Campaign continues it seemed pretty clear to me that it had not encountered the sort of reception that it had originally hoped for.
What I think the AMLO campaign draws out that we need to think a lot more about is how even moderately left electoral efforts can potentially precipitate political crises in various ways and the problems this raises in terms of really accompanying the people through their processes of struggle. When the election was stolen, the EZLN was able to say, in effect, “we told you so” but they had pretty much zero influence over the literally millions of people who were in the streets, effectively abdicating to the PRD hacks who were determined to demonstrate their “responsibility” to the real powers that be.
A couple points:
1. It isn’t correct to say that the EZLN equivocated on the elections. They launched their own “Other Campaign” which involved a tour by Marcos of much of the southern half of the country prior to the elections. The Other Campaign, while not posed as an abstentionist project per se, was in effect composed of abstentionists since almost everyone else on the left was working for AMLO.
2. Marcos doesn’t claim to represent the indigenous people of Chiapas. Indeed he quite explicitly says that he is the spokesman and military leader of the EZLN, but that the EZLN is but one of many indigenous organizations.
In any event, some useful stuff to think about.
April 1, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I think in general election can be a forum where the ruling class actually does enter into conflict over the future path of the State, and this conflict can precipitate a legitimacy crisis and create room for more radical forces. Many elections in the U.S. and Mexico have been the site of exactly these kinds of tensions exploding, the election of Lincoln, and the election of Madero being two obvious and extreme examples. But I think you can confuse the election for the trigger in the same way that standard high school history teaches that WWI was caused by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (and his groovy band).
I think there is an implicit analogy to Obama and his movement, and I think that this kind of heightening of tensions is a part of the dynamic with the Obama campaign and the movement behind it. On the other hand, in every case where elections have focused the political power of the masses it was incident to a growing mass movement that was politically independent to the election process itself, whether it was the movement for democracy and land reform in Mexico or the movement for abolition in the U.S. There doesn’t seem to be a clear political focus for the movement around Obama, it seems to be almost exclusively centered on the pragmatic goal of getting Obama elected, while showing a willingness to abandon principled stands on the War and other issues. It’s a strange conjunction of ideology and structural tensions. It reminds me of the Iraq War in comparison to the Vietnam War, there are similarities to past events, and yet there is a surprisingly unfocused opposition to all of this, a strange sort of political drift.
I hope my earlier comment on Obama’s campaign didn’t suggest an inability to see this kind of a history, but I don’t really think that it applies to the current situation in the U.S., even as there are similarities. For all the reasons that I laid out, I think it is highly unlikely that the movement behind Obama will reach the heights of even the AMLO movement, which even as it was a great focus for the masses had many of its own failings as Linda D. has pointed out. I would add that this lack of political goal independent of Obama’s candidacy is another block to any kind of “transcendence”. Again, this can change given certain unforeseen events.
As an aside, why do you say AMLO is better than PRD, tellnolies?
April 1, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Dear Compañero/or is it Compañera (?), Tellnolies–
Thank you for your comments. I will definitely think about, and try and study further your “criticisms” or points of clarification. While I don’t want to nit-pick, flat out, have to say, I support the Zapatistas, and perhaps mischaracterized Marcos and his stated role as “spokesman and military leader of the EZLN.” Además, am certainly no “expert” on the “Other Campaign.” Obviously you are much more on top of all that. But I think in a circuitous way, your insights point to what I was trying to say about how the Zapatistas are currently and UNFORTUNATELY viewed, in the main. Por ejemplo, The Other Campaign didn’t have much impact, not because the majority of forces on the left were working for AMLO. I think it is because, and am more than sad to say, that the Zapatistas have become more isolated (and to go out on a limb, somewhat sectarian). I consider this to be an error, but one that can be rectified! Many people were looking to them for leadership, and their disappearance, for all intents and purposes, had an effect on the more revolutionary forces, as well as the mobilized masses.
In reading your comments, I looked up the RCP’s article on the election. Have to say that there were things in their analysis that rang true; on the other hand, while I tried to read their summation objectively, it pissed me off that they seemed to be in part jumping on the bandwagon of a mass struggle involving millions, when before that they were slamming the whole notion of AMLO, the forces and ideas he represented, and any form of electoral politics. I don’t know about you, but this kind of thing infuriates me.
SO, as you stated, re the Zapatistas: “When the election was stolen, the EZLN was able to say, in effect, “we told you so” but they had pretty much zero influence over the literally millions of people…” Well, the RCP didn’t even say that–as in I told you so. And let’s get real–they had less than zero influence, but still felt they were in a position to sum things up.
And something very much glossed over was that AMLO had to deal with lots of contradictions within his own party, the PRD, and certainly he had to battle PAN (who everyone knows represent the most reactionary forces and ideas within the ruling class)…but the RCP blanketly said: “There is no disagreement between them [AMLO and Calderon] that the path for Mexico’s development can only proceed and advance by attracting increased imperialist investment to Mexico. Neither can escape—and neither argues that they should try to escape—from the framework of imperialist relations which dominate Mexico.”
Well that’s just not true! If they bothered to study and follow what AMLO was proposing and arguing for, they could never make that kind of statement. (For one thing, AMLO’s exposure around immigration/migration was the polar opposite of what the RCP proposed. He was actually calling for self-reliance, and took a very anti-imperialist stand, as well as a militant stand against the ruling class of Mexico. And from my limited and empirical view, had he proposed otherwise, he wouldn’t have amassed and had the support of the masses in their millions. Moreover, the election fraud reflected the fears of the existing Mexican ruling class (and U.S. imperialists) because of AMLO’s stand.)
So here’s the problem as I see it: misrepresentations and misinformation, including my own, and viewing the various upheavals, etc. in a mechanical way can be disarming and dangerous. E.G., If there are contradictions amongst the bourgeoisie, seems to me necessary to not only analyze the different forces within that class, but to utilize the contradictions for the benefit of the masses and revolutionary forces. Am gonna paraphrase Lenin–because while dear Mike has said I’m a Maoist–which is an exaggeration, although I do still believe in the power of MLM–I can’t quote Lenin verbatim–at least not anymore. Lenin basically said it was important to understand all classes, and within that