Mexico

[Mr BoShambles]

The heart of growth is productivity increases. Small holder farms producing low cost crops are not a good idea from the perspective of development. To compete, Mexican agriculture needs to become more productive, and that means growing higher cost crops for less, which means moving away from small holder farms and towards mechanised high productivity agriculture, and increasing industrialisation (reducing the number of agricultural workers, thus increasing the return to labour in that sector).

I'm not disputing the validity of this in purely economic terms. But there are social/cultural implications which need to be considered. Padraig is in a better position to flesh this out but i think its highly unlikely that such policies - "moving away from small holder farms and towards mechanised high productivity agriculture, and increasing industrialisation" - would resonate positively with the indigenous populations in the south. A direct relationship with the land is of fundamental socio-cultural importance to the Maya.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Dunno if I read that economist piece in the same way. Didn't get the impression that they were trying to make it seem like the "rebellion" (is that the right word?) had failed. What would success look like? Think it is more directed towards whether or not there is still an insurrection. Anyway, point is supposed to be the income distribution.

admittedly it didn't really have much to do with the main thrust of the article. it just irked me how the point was framed.

also with the major caveat that the best ppl to ask what "success" would look like are obv the Zapatistas themselves & that I don't want to speak for them -I think that it depends on whether you're talking ideals or what's obtainable. certainly a measure of self-rule/determination for the indigenous ppl of Chiapas (autonomia was a word I heard a lot) while still remaining a part of the Mexican state. in general fairer treatment for the indigenous ppl of Mexico. economic policies that give more opportunities to the indigenous poor while still allowing them to retain their dignity.

The heart of growth is productivity increases. Small holder farms producing low cost crops are not a good idea from the perspective of development. To compete, Mexican agriculture needs to become more productive, and that means growing higher cost crops for less, which means moving away from small holder farms and towards mechanised high productivity agriculture, and increasing industrialisation (reducing the number of agricultural workers, thus increasing the return to labour in that sector).

not to be a jerk but that's pretty much exactly what I expected. I'm sure you're well aware of the (many, many) accompanying drawbacks to the above so I won't bother mentioning most of them. the govt also has been trying to do this for a while, Salinas famously tried to dismantle Article 27 of the Constitution, in '91 he repealed the consitutional right to ejidos & made it legal to sell them to corporations tho most, if not all, ejidatarios have resisted doing so.

What was the PRI's relationship with the cartels like?

that's a good question. I'm not sure - tho as far as I know there was relative peace (at least relative to now) btwn the govt & cartels for most of the PRI's run - most of the violence of the 60s/70s/80s was political - La Guerra Sucia & so on, a la Europe, especially Italy.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I'm not disputing the validity of this in purely economic terms. But there are social/cultural implications which need to be considered. Padraig is in a better position to flesh this out but i think its highly unlikely that such policies - "moving away from small holder farms and towards mechanised high productivity agriculture, and increasing industrialisation" - would resonate positively with the indigenous populations in the south. A direct relationship with the land is of fundamental socio-cultural importance to the Maya.

Mr. Boshambles you cut to the heart of the matter - a major (perhaps the only one really, in the way it kind of encompasses everything else) cause of the EZLN uprising - not the formation of the EZLN, the decision to actually foment an armed uprising - was the the attempt to implement exactly the kinds of policies you mentioned, Vimothy. not just the EZLN either, of course indigenous ppl in other places (Oaxaca, Guerrero, etc.) have raised similar objections if not with such a high profile. the inevitable outcome of such policies would, of course, be to force more & more ppl to move to the urban slums of DF or other cities, destroying the fabric of their communities & their way of life.

having land is a very, very powerful thing, especially when you & your forebears have shed blood over it. it's also power in & of itself - in many cases the only power these ppl have.

& I can't despite the all to obvious "purely economic terms" either, tho I think 1) purely economic terms often fail to translate to the real world (as economists know I'm sure) & 2) I strongly suspect those terms would favor the elites (& foriegn investors) at the expense of the poor/rural/indigenous, as is often the case.

 

[vimothy]

I'm sure that's a very relevant parameter. Development policy can only do so much. There's may even be a case for some protectionism. But movement into other crops need not necessitate leaving the land. My understanding of Mexican agricultural economy is that they're highly invested in low-yielding crops. And I'm sure some productivity gains could be made as well. How likely these are to happen is another issue, I guess.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

you can't separate the fighters from the communities - they're not just lefty students from the city (except Marcos of course & perhaps a few of his old comrades from the 70s). also there's no external force "controlling" EZLN villages, the villages are the EZLN.

Are you sure that the communities are as united as you present. Read/saw somewhere suggestions that the communities were actually quite divided as to whether to adopt armed struggle or continue peaceful pressure for reform. Apparently once a vote was taken and passed in favour of support for the EZLN, those who remained in opposition to the decision were forced to leave for good. And the slow process of Zapatista negotiations with the government, which followed the cessation of "official" violence (i.e. after the initial 12 days of fighting), apparently also caused internal friction amongst the community support base.

How accurate is this IYO?

 

[Mr BoShambles]

having land is a very, very powerful thing, especially when you & your forebears have shed blood over it. it's also power in & of itself - in many cases the only power these ppl have.

Chiapas is among Mexico’s poorest, most marginalized states. By most measures of misery, it scores far worse than the Mexican average. The EZLN’s local agenda—for better education and medical services, electricity, paved roads, etc.—resonated with the indigenas because of the awful poverty and desperation in the region.

The EZLN’s social base consists mostly of indigenas from Mayan language groups and communities known as Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Tojolabal, and Chole. There are other Mayan groups, but these were the ones whose migration into the eastern lowlands and whose historical presence in the central highlands meant they ended up squarely in the EZLN’s recruiting zone.

The paragraphs that follow appear to emphasize the effects of adverse economic factors and policies on the indigenas. But it is important to realize that the key economic factor—land—is not really about economics from an indigenous viewpoint. As one of our interviewees (Donna Lee Van Cott) explained, land matters intensely to Indians because it is the physical basis for community—for having a sense of community and for being able to endure as a community. Without land, an indigenous people cannot dwell together; their community is culturally dead. Outsiders (including Marxists) often view the Indian struggle for land in economic class terms, evoking images of “landless peasants.” But for Indians, the truly important dimensions of the land issue are about community and culture. Thus, in Chiapas, the indigenas who migrated ever deeper into the jungle were striving not only to earn a living, but also to find a way to preserve community.​

From here: Chap 3 of Arquilla and Ronfeldt et al The Zapatista Social Netwar in Mexico. Download the whole book here.

 

[vimothy]

Padraig -- I'm not sure sure we're talking about the same thing. If you want incomes to rise, the economy has to grow. If you want the economy to grow, you have to increase productivity, because economic growth just means that economy can produce more goods and services. How you go about doing that depends on circumstances. I'm not advocating stealing land off anyone. Stealing peoples' land is not cool. And if/when the government stops stealing land, the people living there will face the same problem: how to maximise their resources.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I'm sure that's a very relevant parameter. Development policy can only do so much. There's may even be a case for some protectionism. But movement into other crops need not necessitate leaving the land. My understanding of Mexican agricultural economy is that they're highly invested in low-yielding crops. And I'm sure some productivity gains could be made as well. How likely these are to happen is another issue, I guess.

I admittedly do not know a ton about agriculture (a little bit tho, I lived on an organic farm for a yr). which crops are "low-yield"? what other crops would they be moving to? I mean I'm thinking corns/beans here, coffee, sugar cane, that's what most ppl grow. Stuff like rice & pineapples & such in the more overtly tropical areas. plus I guess Oaxaca specializes in maguey (used to make mezcal) & Jalisco in agave (tequila).

It need not necessitate leaving the land; it just does the overwhelming majority of the time. the problem with the stuff you bring up is that it almost always necessitates selling the land to an outside agrobusiness interest of some kind - even if they wanted to I highly doubt most campesinos have the capital to invest in mechanization & pesticides & such. that stuff is expensive. this is perhaps an area where the govt can intervene, via loan programs of some kind? or incentives that encourage campesinos to make the switch in a way that allows them to retain their land?

I don't think the how & the what are separate issues here at all, exactly the opposite. tho as you say there's ways & therer's ways to increase productivity.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Are you sure that the communities are as united as you present. Read/saw somewhere suggestions that the communities were actually quite divided as to whether to adopt armed struggle or continue peaceful pressure for reform. Apparently once a vote was taken and passed in favour of support for the EZLN, those who remained in opposition to the decision were forced to leave for good. And the slow process of Zapatista negotiations with the government, which followed the cessation of "official" violence (i.e. after the initial 12 days of fighting), apparently also caused internal friction amongst the community support base.

How accurate is this IYO?

no it's all true *EDIT* well I mean approximately true* - actually I was worried that I was painting too rosy a picture, I had/have my own critiques of the EZLN.

I do think you have to put it in perspective tho. this has been a problem for the Maya (indigenous ppl) the world over for 500 yrs - there has always been the issue of differing opinions on what course of action to take, how militant to be. it was an issue well before the EZLN & it will continue to be.

a lot of this conlict is actually smaller local conflicts that are frequently quite personal, incredibly bitter affairs, sometimes between neighbors. of course both the govt & individual opponents (ranchers, large landowners etc.) of the EZLN have tried to play up these divisions, classic divide & conquer stuff.

one village I went to was described to me as 1/3 Zapatista, 1/3 PRI & 1/3 neutral - just in one village! & these ppl were living in close proximity to each other, making communal decisions (in our case about the water stuff I mentioned). it's also hard to get a read on it, even from the ground - the Maya are by nature pretty insular & they're also very wary (with good reason obv) of outsiders, white guys, even ones claiming to "support" them. even when I could prise information out of people it was often pretty cryptic or noncommital.

certainly it's very complex - one thing I would say that, at least to my knowledge, there's never been any massacres by the EZLN - forced relocation, yes, tho that's also happened the other way round where EZ supporters have been forced to leave villages by govt supporters.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Padraig -- I'm not sure sure we're talking about the same thing. If you want incomes to rise, the economy has to grow. If you want the economy to grow, you have to increase productivity, because economic growth just means that economy can produce more goods and services. How you go about doing that depends on circumstances. I'm not advocating stealing land off anyone. Stealing peoples' land is not cool. And if/when the government stops stealing land, the people living there will face the same problem: how to maximise their resources.

I don't think you're advocating stealing peoples' land, didn't mean to give you that impression. tho also it's not even outright stealing (tho that does happen) so much as inducing heavy pressure on ppl to sell their land. & not all the blame should be laid at the Mexican govt's feet tbf - a large share certainly but not all of it.

I understand what growth & increased productivity mean - I was more interested in pragmatic approaches to what we're talking about - how southern Mexico's economy could grow without screwing the indigenous (& mestizo) poor - specific policies & such that might be implemented more than broad economic principles. If you don't have any that's certainly fair - I mean you're not a specialist in Mexico or whatever.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

From here: Chap 3 of Arquilla and Ronfeldt et al The Zapatista Social Netwar in Mexico. Download the whole book here.

I remember trying to read this before the first time I went to Chiapas, aged 18, & being fairly flummoxed. I should give it another go - I'm sure it would be much more interesting these days.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Incidentally my uncle - an anthropologist - spent a relatively short time as a neutral observer in one village which was certainly divided in a similar way to the one you describe padraig. I have a copy of the report he submitted so i'll dig it out when i get home later and see if there's any insights it can offer us.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Incidentally my uncle - an anthropologist - spent a relatively short time as a neutral observer in one village which was certainly divided in a similar way to the one you describe padraig. I have a copy of the report he submitted so i'll dig it out when i get home later and see if there's any insights it can offer us.

I really want to stress that it's not a new problem or one unique to the EZLN, rather that it's a been common theme of indigenous struggle since Cortes. not just in Latin America either - for example Gabriel Prosser, who was sold out by fellow slaves, or the FLN in Algeria, & actually to make a topical point - the Palestinians, of course. The EZLN (& again, we're really talking about a confederation/network of villages here) has by & large I think managed to handle it pretty well. not perfectly, surely, but pretty well.

& sorry but I'm not clear - was your uncle in a village in Chiapas or in another, similar place?

 

[Mr BoShambles]

I really want to stress that it's not a new problem or one unique to the EZLN, rather that it's a been common theme of indigenous struggle since Cortes. not just in Latin America either - for example Gabriel Prosser, who was sold out by fellow slaves. The EZLN (& again, we're really talking about a confederation/network of villages here) has by & large I think managed to handle it pretty well. not perfectly, surely, but pretty well.

sure this makes sense

& sorry but I'm not clear - was your uncle in a village in Chiapas or in another, similar place?

in chiapas -- i'll be more specific when i've got his work to hand.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

I had/have my own critiques of the EZLN.

I for one would be very interested to hear you expand on this point. Its always hard to make a judgement of something (like the EZLN \ broader Zapatista social movement) from afar - though the media - when it clearly polarises opinion to such a degree.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I for one would be very interested to hear you expand on this point.

ok, I'll try - but be forewarned it might not be overwhelmingly lucid, I still haven't worked some of this stuff out in my own head. it's tricky in ways it simply wouldn't be if they were traditional Marxist guerrillas, where you pretty much know the pros & cons going in. it's also hard sometimes to draw the line sometimes between "critique" & cultural definitions or, much worse, imposing my own values on them. "critique" too is perhaps not the best word - "mixed feelings" is probably more accurate most of the time. with all that said:

their politics are hard to pin down b/c EZLN spokespeople & documents are often (mostly deliberately, I reckon) vague &/or evasive - quite savvy in terms of attracting support as it's allowed them to be many things to many very different supporters. the flipside to this is that it allows them to evade critiques just as easily. generally they've always been for self-determination, dignity (don't underrate the importance of that) & land, maybe not in that order, all of which I fully support. you also hear more abstract terms like peace & justice.

"they're reformist" is essentially true. I don't know if I'd call it a critique - at least not for me if stated so bluntly - but I do think it's at least problematic. this is really an endless problem for anti-state lefties of all stripes - do you support anti-colonial & indigenous struggles which are authoritarian or reformist (sometimes both at once!) in nature or not? really it's total abstract bullshit unless you're planning on doing active support work, not that that stops from people in these circles from agonizing about at it great length. In this case it matters for me b/c, in very pragmatic terms, in the long run I just don't see how it's possible for them to live in peace & prosperity & retain something of their traditional life and for an economy based on neoliberal capitalism to flourish there. I guess I fall on the side of supporting but I don't try to invent excuses for things I disagree with.

there's the things you mentioned too, people being expelled from communities - really it's very hard to know the facts here - as I've said they're pretty closemouthed about a lot of this, nor did I feel it was at all my place to ask. as in the midst of any revolution or war I'm sure there's been abuses where people used the cause to prosecute personal vendettas or settle old scores. I don't know, really.

a lot of cultural things as well, with the aformentioned warnings. as the great majority of Zapatistas are rural peasants & I'm an American city boy you can imagine there was some culture shock. most of them are devout Catholics (albeit a weird syncretic Catholicism incorporating elements from their own religions), some evangelical Protestants as well, I was born half-Jewish, half-Catholic but I've been an atheist since I was 12. mostly this is whatever but there are some things, like; homosexuality was a totally taboo topic. very traditional gender roles, woman kept in their place - tho tbf supposedly the uprising has changed this somewhat not by design but b/c it offered opportunities for woman that hadn't existed before, in the army (there have always been women fighters) & EZLN government.

other small things, like they drank Coca-Cola all the time. I didn't, b/c it wasn't my place, but I'd always want to say "don't you know they've murder union organizers by the bushel in Colombia" or something, just to point out the irony of being so much against neoliberalism & drinking Coke. I don't know if you'd call these critiques really. especially cos why they should have to conform to my western, anti-capitalist values, you know?

anyway I hope you find some of this interesting.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

one more thing - as I was saying about traditional Marxists it's easier to critique them b/c there's a track record, also you know what their final aims are. with the EZLN most of the critiques I've heard/read seem to be more about the critiquers trying to make the EZLN fit into what they want it to be, or complaining when it doesn't. this ties to in to the EZLN's amorphous public image. also they don't really have a "final aim" in the way that Marxists want to overthrow the state - there is no climax waiting in the wings - which I think is mainly a positive thing.

read this for some alternating laffs/cringes. more cringes I reckon.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

in chiapas -- i'll be more specific when i've got his work to hand.

So in 1998 my uncle spent two weeks in a village called La Soledad (Chiapas) as a neutral observer attached to the Fray Bartolome Centre for Human Rights based in San Cristobal de las Casas.

He says:

La Soledad is a divided village of betweeen 70-90 households: and the divisions are extremely complex - never following a straight line. Members of the same families are in different groups (PRIistas; Independentes; PT's -the Workers Party allied to the PRI; and of course Zapatistas; all in roughly equal numbers); the houses are clustered and scattered rather than segregated; some "public" areas are "neutral" and some "belong" to particular groups; some activities are shared, like church and some fiestas; others are particular, like schooling and other fiestas; people shop in their "own" stores for preference, but will purchase from whoever has the goods they need. Information given in good faith is not always consistent. In spite of all these cross-linkages, we sensed that people had stereotyped views of people in other groups.

Our role as observers was almost as complex, not least because we could never hope to comprehend the dynamics of the whole village. We were neutral, but present at the invitation of only one party (Zapatista); and concerned for the human rights of everyone.​

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Documentary: 'A Place Called Chiapas'

This is worth watching for anyone wanting to get a feel for the Zapatista movement, its history, evolution, values, methods, difficulties etc.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

anyway I hope you find some of this interesting.

very interesting thanks man - i guess this just highlights the complexities of a) social relations in general; and b) being an "outsider" trying to interpret such relations.