SHORT NOTICE: Activist from Oaxaca speaks in Oxford, 20/02/07

the WRONG oaxaca "activist" in london

No comment Mutha Fukka | 18.02.2007 01:48 | Oaxaca Uprising | Analysis | Social Struggles | Zapatista | London | Scotland
A punch in the face to the APPO and to all the one are fighting for social change.

Hi, I went to the 'talk' at the uni in London that was part of the '
situation in Oaxaca ' tour with speaker Andreas Allet. He talked for some
45mins giving an account of his interpretation of the recent events in
Oaxaca. Maybe nerves or the interpretation, I'm not sure, but his review
was dotted with inaccuracies. Check out with the people of Oaxaca what
happened on the 25th November and compare it with your 27th, When you
review the video tape of yourself it will confirm this small but important
inaccuracy and others. Nit picking maybe but I'm not a 'lawyer'. What
troubled me, in my opinion, was at best a misinterpretation of the stance
of the APPO. After checking a recent translation of a meeting of the APPO
dated 13th February 2007 :

'…..After an all night debate, the APPO came to the consensus that the
APPO itself will not run candidates nor become a political party. Any
individual who choose to offer candidates from whatever party may do so,
however if such a person is a member of the APPO council, s/he will have
to resign their position'

www.eco.utexas.edu/~archive/chiapas95/2007.02/msg00077.html

The people don't need leaders. What part of the words 'self governance'
don't you understand Trotskyists? In previous discussions the APPO have
talked about standing for governor as a tactical move to get rid of the
corrupt Ulises Ruiz not in terms of creating a leadership for the APPO.
The APPO don't want to become a political party.

Where does the dig at the Stalinists come from when you are pushing the
Trotsky line? We all know that you are just replacing one corrupt ideology
with another. The APPO aren't interested in becoming the future leaders of
Mexico and pushing their ideals on other states, they just want to take
responsibility of Oaxaca. Stalinists and Trotskyists? What's happening in
the APPO has nothing to do with those two dodgy characters.

Andreas, the lawyer, also talked about the 'working class' taking power
from the 'bourgeois'. Can he define the working class and bourgeois? Is he
talking about peasants and lawyers? Does he support and uphold the law, or
does he see that the law is corrupt, government sponsored, protecting the
powerful and ruthlessly punishing the powerless - let me hear you slag off
the legal system Andreas or is that not allowed in your 'profession'? The
people don't need leaders, trotskyists, Stalinists, nationalists,
capitalists or socialists. Stop picking at the flesh of the less
privileged, we're sick of parasites. You're on the wrong train, in the
wrong seat travelling to ego central. What are you really doing here?
Career building?
I rest my case. Court adjourned

No comment Mutha Fukka

In oaxaca is going on a process that is very complicated and open to be
misunderstood, especially on this side of the world.
What i heard today is a position very far from what i read and i have been
told by people -from below- from oaxaca. it was more a platform where
somebody tried to push his (or his group) political agenda.
It is very clear that the APPO is a mix of really different realities who
come to organize together, in this mixture as usual there are groups who
try to manipulate and forge a different reality for their own political
agenda.
Not much has been translated of the official documents of the APPO, please
if you can't read spanish try to find somebody who can and ask him/her to
translate for you (and maybe post them also in indymedia).
At the end of the meeting a question arose about the position of the
zapatista in the situation in Oaxaca, question that was answered in three
seconds. he said something like that they didn't lift a finger. Maybe he
doesn't like the zapatista and i respect that but his answer is far from
the truth as many other things he said that i'm not going to list here.

here are some links, for you as well andreas....

 http://www.narconews.com/Issue41/article1899.html
 http://www.narconews.com/Issue43/article2262.html
 http://www0.indymedia.org.uk/media/2006/11/356403.wmv
 http://zapagringo.blogspot.com/2006/10/intergalactic-days-of-action-for.html
 http://www.narconews.com/Issue43/article2363.html
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/354570.html
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/357760.html
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/358801.html

if you read this mail please doubt of everything andreas said but also
doubt of everything I said, go and find out things for yourself.

the APPO web site;
 http://www.asambleapopulardeoaxaca.com/

news in english (lots of documents since may 2006)
www.narconews.com

P.S. the thing he make me jump on the chair; how can someody who "lived"
the repression which took place in oaxaca the 25th of november can forget
the right date, with all the torture, killing, violation that people
suffer that day?

TODO EL PODER AL PUBLO

No Sweat is a front group of the trotskyist alliance for workers liberty. They have staged this tour not to inform about Oaxaca but to promote their bolshekvik politics. A politics that died in 1917 but haunts social movements even in 2007!

Anarchy is the future

Long live APPO! Long Live the anarchist militants in mexico and everywhere

This IS THE TRUE WAY! Follow us, not the others! They are the evil ones!

(rip off from Bill Bailey, but sums up my opinion of this triade of activist-bashing pretty well)

this is the only thing you can do

RIP OFF

doubt of the triade please, found out for yourselves

Below is a comment I posted below an earlier announcement on the Oaxaca tour.

I repeat: when No Sweat has brought activists who are anarchists to the UK, is that okay? So activists who are anarchists are allowed to make their views known, take part in speaker tours, but not activists who are Marxists?

There was a constructive debate between anarchist and socialist views in many of the meetings on the tour. Unfortunately, in the London meeting, many of the anarchist and Zapatista comrades present decided to speak over other speakers and the chair, heckle, repeatedly mumble comments rather than engaging in serious debate.

Also, Andreas did not claim to represent the stance of the APPO, and never claimed that APPO was planning to become a political party or field candidates. Rather he said what he thought SHOULD happen: a) that APPO should take political power away from the bourgeois government; b) that it should take further steps in the direction of becoming a workers' council, by extending the movement to other sectors of the working class (eg tourism, very important in Oaxaca), encouraging the election of recallable delegates etc; c) that he thought a revolutionary party advocating these steps was necessary. You might disagree with that, but the only person being misrepresented here is Andreas.

--

Yes, the speaker on the tour, Andreas Aullet, is a Marxist and a member of Mexican socialist group. He is one of many speakers that No Sweat has brought to the UK since 2002. These speakers - from countries as diverse as Indonesia, Haiti, Argentina, Iraq, Bolivia, the US and Mexico (twice) - have come from a variety of labour movement and leftist backgrounds, including syndicalist and anarchist. Andreas came to speak in his capacity as a participant in the Oaxaca struggle and an activist and lawyer who is helping to fight to free political prisoners following the Mexican government's repression.

What was wrong with him putting forward his political views? Last year's speaker on the No Sweat Zanon tour put forward a sort of syndicalist perspective. Does that mean it was all a syndicalist conspiracy? And when the speakers from the US Living Wage Action Coalition, who were anarchists, came over, was that an anarchist plot? Don't be so ridiculous and paranoid. There were various people involved in the organisation of the Oaxaca meetings, lots of points of view in every audience and lots of time for questions, discussion and debate. I'm sorry if someone putting forward a Marxist view offends you, but there it is.

For reference, in addition to a lot of detailed description of the struggle in Oaxaca and practical proposals for solidarity, the basic ideas Andreas put forward were this. i) The central, back-bone role of the organised working class, in this case in particular the teachers' union, in the social upheaval. ii) The need for the movement to overthrow the state and take political power. iii) In his view, the need for revolutionaries with these perspectives to get politically organised together to advocate and fight for these ideas in the movement. You might disagree with these perspectives, as in fact many in No Sweat do, but what's so sinister about them?

I can not find anything "sinister" about what is being said here. My politics may differ slightly to his, but diversity is strength IMO. I also doubt any of my fellow friends involved in activism (some of whom are anarchists, beleive it or not!) have any issues with what he would say either (although I suppose the author of the sectarian rantings will aruge they aren't "true" anarchists or "true" activists.

Anyway, I live 100 miles away from Oxford, so can't attend this talk even if I wanted to. I just hate it when sectarians engage in petty arguments and invent elaborate consiracies to attack people just because they are involved in promoting the "wrong" kind of socialism (and I include anarchism as a form of socialism). I can understand obscure Trot sects engaging in it, but others ought to know better.

Anyway, as much as I hope that events in Oaxaca, Mexico, and indeed the world as a whole work to the advantage of the disadvantaged and downtrodden, there are more important, and more local issues that are more important to me on a personal scale.

Everybody is entitled to their own personal opinion and analysis of a given situation, whether they have participated in it or not, whether they know anything about it or not.As far as I can see, this tour was mis-advertised.
Perhaps it should have been called
" A young impressionable man from Mexico City tries to find some justification for what he has read in books by superimposing abstract political theory onto the independant uprising in Oaxaca in 2006.
He will be expressing his own personal fantasies,dreams and political models, and will NOT be discussing the historical, cultural,enviromental, economic, geographical, racial or gender context of ANYTHING that has taken place in Oaxaca over the past 9 months.
He will also NOT adhere to "facts" , such as the actual dates when attacks occured, numbers of people imprisoned,tortured, killed, etc etc
He WILL NOT divulge the facts of proclaimed aims of the popular movement in Oaxaca, such as:

Their position regarding political parties in the future social governance of Oaxaca State ( The APPO is a specifically non-political organisational structure and puts forward a model which allows for full recall and also does not admit a 'second term 'for any representative))

The pacific assertion of their struggle and their total refusal to take arms as a means for liberation

The battle against Plan Puebla Panama, the Istmo windfarms, and the planned bombardment of Mexico(and OAXACA IN PARTICULAR, which is the birthplace of corn) by US GM maize.

These 3 projects all directly involve Oaxaca and are incredibly important globally for many reasons.

They are a MAJOR factor in the urgency of the peoples struggle in Oaxaca and are crucially important in understanding the roots of this struggle.

In the broadest sense the Oaxaca revolution is an Environmental Revolution
(this encompasses human rights,plant rights, spiritual rights , land rights,learning rights......) and that is not being expressed internationallly ..... .
There has been an almost total media silence on these very important issues.
these issues have massive implications internationally and it is interesting that this was not discussed at the talk, as there are many people in Europe who would want to be involved with Oaxacas defence of their earth and their bio-heritage.thiese issues are ,for Oaxacans, infinitely more relevant than Factory and Workers rights, by the way!)

etc,etc,etc.
BUT ON THIS LECTURE TOU R< NONE OF THIS WILL BE DISCUSSED.

The speaker will however make continued reference to "Stalinist"Enrique Rueda Pacheco(now ex-) leader of seccion 22 throughout his talk, as if he is the origen of the oppression against the movement.

Many in the audiences will be unfamiliar with this aspect of the struggle,and it is certainly relevant ,but by no means a principal factor, as the teachers in Oaxaca gave up on ERP months ago(early july 2006, in fact)

So nobody in Oaxaca was 'following his Stalinist direction.....
Rueda Pacheco is no longer in charge of s.22, as of 17th feb..

I find it hard to believe that Andres Aullet was actually in Oaxaca
If he goes back there he should try talking to some people and not just listen to what the political faction that has absorbed him tell him.
I think he may be the victim of misinformation and I hope he can find his way out of this, for his own sake.

This speaking tour has been unpopular because it is not what it says it is and there is a lot of interest in the Oaxaca situation and people have been disappointed.

If you coordinate a nationwide speaking tour advertised as a presentation of the background and current situation in the state of Oaxaca, to be given by a Mexican lawyer and Human Rights representative, who will to impart information about the background and current situation in Oaxaca,you cannot expect people to say nothing when the 'talk 'is the exact opposite....

Did anybody come to these talks because they wanted to hear a young man talk about his dream of a class war and his naive fantasy of Stalinist conspiracy.
I doubt it!
They came because they had heard that something very unusual and important is happening in Oaxaca and they wanted to know more.
And perhaps have a discussion about interesing aspects of this most contemporary and inspiring revolution.
And they were not only let down, but also attacked and criticized..What is going on here?????

In Oaxaca in the summer of last year was born the first revolution of the 21st century.
and the most inclusive revolution in history, i would assert(but that then is my personal opinion..!)
A movement that does not embrace sectarianism, and is not party political and which is inclusive, courageous, flexible and forward-thinking.

The reason there was anger and dissent at the meetings was not because people disagreed with the expression of a personal political viewpoint, it was because there was overt misinformation (which can be tantamount to lying ) being told openly.
Unfortunately this young man who was chosen to talk knows nothing about Oaxaca!!!!!!Again, what is going on here!!!!!

To tell so many untruths to a room full of interested and well informed people shows an incredible arrogance, and to be so aggresive when challenged only exposes the irrelevance and weakness of this banal yet potentially damaging sabotage.

People know when they are being lied, to and they do not respect this.

Ofenua:
“People are being lied to”. That’s not true, is it. There is a difference of opinion, that’s all.
Ofenua again: “[people were] attacked and criticized?” Come on, there was just a little bit of debate. Debate = criticism, I suppose. If someone says, ‘I think you’re wrong’, it can be interpreted as an ‘attack’ or ‘criticism’, if you like…
Ofenua: ‘[this was] banal yet potentially damaging sabotage’. Interesting combination, that: banality and sabotage!
And: “This speaking tour has been unpopular.” No, quite the opposite, in fact.
And: “ON THIS LECTURE TOUR NONE OF THIS WILL BE DISCUSSED.” No, that’s not right either. On this lecture tour, as in every other forum No Sweat organises, people are free to say pretty much whatever they want.

Which brings me to my first point: The problem in the London meeting last Saturday was not ‘anger’ (maybe I missed it) or sharp political debate, it was this: there were people in the audience who, from various different standpoints disagreed with the speaker. But they failed to speak up, clearly and openly, for their point of view.
Maybe some people lacked confidence; possibly others, faced with the need to clearly debate their point of view, found they couldn’t manage to hang an argument together.

Ofenua: “In the broadest sense the Oaxaca revolution is an Environmental Revolution (this encompasses human rights, plant rights, spiritual rights, land rights, learning rights......) and that is not being expressed internationallly ..... . there are many people in Europe who would want to be involved with Oaxacas defence of their earth and their bio-heritage.thiese issues are for Oaxacans, infinitely more relevant than Factory and Workers rights, by the way!)”

Now there is common ground here. I’m on the side of APPO against the state’s repression. So let’s agree to work together on this, if we can.
But, overall, our problem is that many of us don’t agree with that assessment. Sorry, but that’s what we need to discuss. In fact I’ve no idea what ‘plant rights’ are. ‘Spiritual rights’ – what does that mean? ‘Learning rights’ – you mean the right to free education? Or ‘defence of their earth’? – perhaps I agree, I’m not sure…

Anyway, what we see is a militant rank and file movement inside the teachers’ union, central to the struggle in Oaxaca. (Nicely pointing to the fact that workers do not all work in factories).
So it is not just that a ‘struggle’ is happening, but that the organised workers are central: that’s a big deal for us. Yes, guilty! (and incidentally this is not anarchists vs Trotskyists: many anarchists will agree with the importance of the centrality of the workers; many Trotskyists have forgotten the workers in favour of the Muslim Brothers and George Galloway).

And then there’s a second question. Politics.
Mutha Fucka quotes:
“After an all night debate, the APPO came to the consensus that the APPO itself will not run candidates nor become a political party. Any individual who choose to offer candidates from whatever party may do so, however if such a person is a member of the APPO council, s/he will have to resign their position”
OK, I understand their position. The problem seems to be this, however. Anyone who says, ‘Down with Ulises Ruiz’ had better have an answer to, ‘then what?’ If an election is called and the PRI run a candidate; and other parties that are no good run candidates; should the workers and the poor have a candidate? Why not? Unless they run, the field is open for more of the same (or similar).

Mr Fucka again: “In previous discussions the APPO have talked about standing for governor as a tactical move to get rid of the corrupt Ulises Ruiz not in terms of creating a leadership for the APPO.”
Seems a reasonable idea, to me…

Mr Fucka: “What part of the words 'self governance' don't you understand?”
Well, I understand “self” and I understand “governance”. So you’re simply for a gvt elected and accountable to local people? – who’d argue with that?
But it seems that “self governance” might mean something different to you?

“The people don't need leaders”
Strange then that leaders seem to emerge. In APPO too.
Given that protest movements etc contain people with different levels of knowledge, expertise, commitment, background, history in past struggles etc – I’d suggest this is hardly surprising, and neither sinister nor a fundamental problem.
But given this fact, better to have elected, accountable leaders, than not, I’d suggest. That's all that need be done: keep an eye on leaders and kick them out if they bend.

mark wrote:

"OK, I understand their position. The problem seems to be this, however. Anyone who says, ‘Down with Ulises Ruiz’ had better have an answer to, ‘then what?’ If an election is called and the PRI run a candidate; and other parties that are no good run candidates; should the workers and the poor have a candidate? Why not? Unless they run, the field is open for more of the same (or similar)."

Hmmm, are you really that naive?

Concentrating power in the hands of the few is the problem. Joining in the elections of the ruling class simply validates their elitism - there can be no gain for the workers and the poor -but hey, maybe I missed it? Maybe there has been an election which has seen a government which is for the poor and the workers and against the ruling elite and the bosses. Can you point me in the direction of any such nirvana?

mark wrote:

"Well, I understand “self” and I understand “governance”. So you’re simply for a gvt elected and accountable to local people? – who’d argue with that?"

Well, I fail to see how that could be termed SELF governance? It is still governance of the many by the few. A decentralised system of local assemblies is more likely to lead to SELF governance, no?

Mr Thatcher’s friend: “Concentrating power in the hands of the few is the problem.”
Obviously power shouldn’t be concentrated in a few hands. Those elected to public office should be (easily) subject to recall; paid the average wage etc.

Mr Thatcher’s friend: “Joining in the elections of the ruling class simply validates their elitism”.
If we stand on a platform of denouncing ‘elitism’ how could we be validating ‘elitism’? And why can’t we use the election campaign to tell people what we stand for. And if we get elected, to use the positions to mobilise against the capitalists?

Mr Thatcher’s friend: “Maybe there has been an election which has seen a government which is for the poor and the workers and against the ruling elite and the bosses. Can you point me in the direction of any such nirvana?”
Sorry, there’s no nirvana – either created by an election or by an abstention from election. Equally, we don’t have to try to find a perfect gvt to realise that there’s a difference between, say, Otto Wels and Hitler; Churchill and the 1945 Labour gvt.
I’d really hate you to think I’m a Labourite. Of course I’m not.
And I’m not endorsing the Labour gvt of 45 when I simply note that this gvt acted under working class pressure and delivered some significant reforms. And before you list the wars fought by that gvt and the strikes it broke – I know; I haven’t forgotten. Nevertheless the NHS was a real, tangible gain for the class. Was it not?
...
Mr Thatcher’s friend: “Well, I fail to see how that could be termed SELF governance? It is still governance of the many by the few. A decentralised system of local assemblies is more likely to lead to SELF governance, no?”

So, let me try to understand. You want to replace the centralised bourgeois state with ‘a decentralised system of local assemblies’. Sounds good.
So these bodies would take over the running of society, which from this point on would be run by the workers and the poor? And because the existing ruling class wouldn’t accept that, these decentralised local assemblies would have to overthrow existing power/defend themselves? And because that bourgeois power is – at the very least – Mexico-wide they’d have to link up, Mexico-wide, with similar organisations to confront and replace the existing state?
They’d also have to take responsibility for all those things in modern life we’d still want (internet, heath care, education, electricity, water, etc etc)?
Since the production of – say – electricity requires fantastically complex networks, currently controlled by capitalists and run according to market mechanisms, we’d need to replace them.
And run them according to our own priorities.
Which implies (minimally) Mexico-wide economic planning? (How would you run an electricity system in any other way?)
Which implies delegated authority (we can't all be involved in everthing, we can't all be everywhere). I don't have a problem with this at all - with one proviso: that delegates are accountable and work within a framework set by the majority, the working class and poor.

But hang on! It is becoming clearer! You don’t want that do you?!
Perhaps you might let us know how you’re thinking these decentralised systems of local assemblies might work?

Please dont misquote.
I said 'people know when they are being lied to', not 'people are being lied to'

I said 'people know when they are being lied to', not 'people are being lied to'
Sorry, why would you write 'people know when they are being lied to' unless you thought some lying was going on? Please clarify, I'm baffled!

And what about the other points I made?

Thanks

ok, i've waited a few days. No response.
What do I conclude?
That, probably, you not capabale of stringing a reply together.
Wretched.

S. MARK, I have tried 3 times to reply to your comments...
None were published.
I don't know why.
Maybe this will not be published too!
Anyway, just to say, although your remark does not quite merit a civil response, it was not through my "'wretched' inability to string words together", bur rather the wretched inability of modern technology to manifest that string on the internet
One should never make declamatory assumptions.....it is always counterproductive.