Oaxaca report

More (bad) news from Oaxaca and some astute points about activist responses to the movement. As per previous post, this is not an 'embedded' report but someone who has been following the news closely. B 

As promised, a brief report on the news today from and about Oaxaca.

 In brief, the news isn't good. It looks very much like the end of the Oaxacan movement as it has been up to now, i.e., a movement occupying public space, controlling a certain amount of urban territory, and with certain resources at its disposal. It no longer seems capable of taking the initiative in the streets of Oaxaca, much less anywhere else, unless there is some kind of regrouping going on that isn't visible as of yet.

 In addition to the last (and most combative) barricade being removed early this morning, this evening it was announced in the Mexican press that the "radical wing" of APPO at the University (where much of the movement had sought refuge after the initial entry into Oaxaca of the Federal Police at the end of October) has surrendered control of Radio Universidad, supposedly after negotiations with the university authorities.  One imagines that a good deal of pressure was brought to bear on these authorities by the forces of the state. As you also probably know, this radio played a central role as a means of communication for the Oaxacan movement (and this kind of pirate or appropriated radio (the protesters took over a number of radio stations some months ago, and for a while broadcast from them) is worth highlighting in an account of the movement).

 To me, this surrender of the radio would seem to be the latest in a series of defeats over the past few days. The fact that the "Cinco Senores" barricade was removed without a fight, and without any appeal on Radio Universidad, was already a sign of how things were going today. After the arrests of the past few days, the movement has been unable to mount any kind of protest or response. And, so far at least, there has been no response in the rest of Mexico. (One of the hardest aspects of the movement to grasp, for me at least, is how Oaxaca has been viewed and/or supported in the rest of Mexico, and whether it is considered to be a regional, localized phenomenon. In other countries, one would imagine there would appeals for a general strike. One senses that what made Oaxaca so radical--local influences and traditions--has also limited its effect on the rest of Mexico. Time will tell whether this is so, but so far there have been no attempts to replicate the Oaxacan example anywhere else.)

 The repressive actions conducted by the Mexican state and the local governor were obviously timed to coincide with the presidential transition from Fox to Calderon (the latter takes office in two days). It also seems to have resulted from a decision to get firm and deprive the Oaxacan movement of initiative by pushing the demonstrators back and removing all encampments and barricades.

 So far, the repression has been aimed at militants, but also the so-called leadership of APPO. The brother of the notorious Flavio Sosa (an opportunist who ended as a kind of unofficial spokesman for APPO) was arrested yesterday. The total number of arrests has surpassed 150, with many of these being transferred by helicopter to a prison some distance from Oaxaca. There are reports of a number of disappearances, but there has been no confirmation of the reports of fatalities that I wrote about in my Sunday message. This shows up something: the spottiness of reports coming from supporters of the movement, and the need to draw on multiple sources to corroborate any piece of information. NarcoNews, for example, has been wildly uneven in its reports: some are good, others are almost hysterical; nowhere in their reporting do you find talk of the split between the rank-and-file and the leadership of APPO, something much in evidence at the denouement over the weekend, and which I have found confirmation of in a number of other sources, but which is not talked about now in the aftermath of the repression.

 As for analyses or opinions on the Oaxacan movement from outside Mexico, they have been fairly predictable (and without advancing our understanding of the events a whit). The ultraleft purists of the International Communist Current have passed judgment on the whole movement, denouncing APPO as a "betrayal of the proletariat" and the struggle over enconomic issues mounted by the unions at the beginning. These ideologues show no understanding of the tensions within APPO, which they simply call a "body foreign to the proletariat" and use the experience as another chance to denounce the pitfalls of "democracy." The ICC goes so far as to denounce the specific, tactical innovations of the movement (road blockages, etc.) and even the street fighting as being "injurious to the proletariat." Amazingly, the ICC holds up the French student movement of earlier this year an example superior to the Oaxacan movement. One does not have to be uncritical of APPO--it is obvious that we would be quite critical of various aspects of it, and would want to bring out the conflict between the radical elements at the base and the leadership--to see the sterile, arid quality of this kind of "analysis."

 In another vein entirely, we have Raoul Vaneigem waxing sentimental over Oaxaca. The text I came across today is the second under his name about Oaxaca, and I can confirm that this one (and presumably the earlier one) is indeed authored by Vaneigem. It was posted on Paris Indymedia--where several orthodox Debodians immediately heaped scorn on it, without saying anything intelligent themselves, by the way.

 In view of today's events, Vaneigem's piece is already outdated. It still speaks of a movement that is growing. He talks about defending the "free Commune of Oaxaca" so that its "popular assembly develops the direct democracy and self-managing (autogestionnaire) practice that the barricaders, urban population and indigenous peasant communities are in the process of consolidating." This all seems ironic now, even leaving out quibbles about Vaneigem's dated language.

 Vaneigem admits that there are still elements of the "old clientelist politics" that have "infiltrated" the Oaxacan movement, but bascially he sees the movement in unnuanced terms, as a whole, much like the ICC, but from a different perspective, of course.

 There is a certain poignancy, and some eloquence, in Vaneigem's appeal, but now understanding of the nuances and complexities of Oaxaca. If an English translation doesn't show up in the next day or too (and one imagines that one or two pro-situs are hard at work to be the first with an English version), I will try to have some rough version for you by the weekend.

 The most interesting texts on Oaxaca are going to come from those closer to the source or with at least better grasp of the issues, the context, and the tensions of the movement.

 At this point, I think the most interesting aspects of the Oaxacan movement are roughly on a par with the Argentine experience (the piqueteros, etc.). They represent something radically at odds with the statist, authoritarian populist projects of the likes of Chavez, while being different from (though not wholly unrelated to) the EZLN in Chiapas. Whether this difference has a chance to articulate itself in Mexico now remains to be seen.

 While it is understandable that people outside of Mexico would want to focus now on protests and support activities for the victims of repression, a simple acclamation of APPO or a cry of "Viva  Oaxaca!" really isn't doing justice to that part of the movement we do see something positive in.