By Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos
While above the policy of disagreement is decreed, in the basement of the world the others find themselves and the other who, being different, is another below. As part of this reconstruction, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation resumed dialogues with movements and social and political organizations in the world, it is about building a common Agenda for discussion.
As the calendars of Power deteriorate and the great corporations of the media waver between the ridiculous and the tragedies that the world political class stars and promotes, below, on the great and extended base of the modern tottering Tower of Babel, the movements do not stop and, although they are still stammering, they begin to recover the word and their capacity as mirror and glass. While above the politics of disagreement is decreed, in the basement of the world the others find themselves and the other who, being different, is another below.
As part of this reconstruction of the word mirror and crystal, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation resumed dialogues with movements and social and political organizations in the world. Initially, with brothers and sisters from Mexico, Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Spanish State, Argentina and the American Union, it is about building a common Agenda for discussion.
It is not intended to establish political and programmatic agreements, nor to attempt a new version of the International. Nor is it about unifying theoretical concepts or unifying conceptions, but about finding and / or building common points of discussion. Something like building theoretical and practical images that are seen and lived from different places.
As part of this meeting effort, the EZLN now presents these 7 thoughts. "Anchoring" them in a spatial and temporal horizon means, on our part, a recognition of our theoretical and practical limitations and, above all, of universal vision. This is our first contribution to the construction of a world agenda for discussion.
We are grateful to the Mexican magazine Rebeldía for having opened its pages for these thoughts. We also thank the publications that in Italy, France, the Spanish State, the American Union and Latin America do the same.
The place of theory (and theoretical analysis) in political and social movements is often overlooked. However, everything evident usually hides a problem, in this case: that of the effects of a theory in a practice and the theoretical "rebound" of the latter. And not only, the problem of the theory is also the problem of who produces that theory.
I do not equate the notion of "theorist" or "theoretical analyst" with that of "intellectual." The latter is broader. The theorist is an intellectual, but the intellectual is not always a theorist.
The intellectual (and therefore the theorist) feels that he has the right to have an opinion on the movements. It is not your right, it is your duty. Some intellectuals go further and become the new "political commissars" of thought and action, handing out titles of "good" and "bad." Their "judgment" has to do with where they are and where they aspire to be.
We think that a movement should not "return" the judgments it receives, and classify intellectuals as "good" or "bad", depending on how they qualify the movement. Anti-intellectualism is nothing more than a misunderstood apology of its own, and, as such, defines a movement as "pubescent."
We believe that the word leaves its mark, the footprints mark directions, the directions imply definitions and commitments. Those who compromise their word for or against a movement, not only have the duty to speak it, but also to "sharpen it" by thinking about their objectives. "For what?" and "Against what?" are questions that must accompany the word. Not to silence it or lower its volume, but to complete it and make it effective, that is, so that what it speaks is heard by those who should listen to it.
Producing theory from a social or political movement is not the same as doing it from academia. And I do not say "academy" in the sense of asepsis or scientific "objectivity" (nonexistent); but only to indicate the place of a space for reflection and intellectual production "outside" of a movement. And "outside" does not mean that there are no "sympathies" or "antipathies", but that this intellectual production does not occur from the movement but on it. Thus, the academic analyst values and judges goodness and evil, successes and errors of past and present movements, and, furthermore, risks prophecies about routes and destinations.
Sometimes it happens that some of the academic analysts aspire to lead a movement, that is, to have the movement follow their guidelines. There, the fundamental reproach of the academic is that the movement does not "obey" him, so all the "errors" of the movement are basically due to their not seeing clearly what is evident to the academic. Lack of memory and dishonesty usually (not always, it is true) in these desktop analysts. One day they say one thing and predict something, the next day the opposite happens, but the analyst has lost his memory and goes back to theorizing, ignoring what he said before. Not only, he's also dishonest because he doesn't bother to respect his readers or listeners. He will never say "yesterday I said this and the opposite did not happen or happened, I was wrong". Hooked on the "today" of the media, the desktop theorist takes the opportunity to "forget." In theory, this academic produces the equivalent of the junk food of the intellect, that is, it does not feed, it only entertains.
Other times, some movement supplies its spontaneity with the theoretical patronage of the academy. The solution is usually more damaging than the lack. If the academy is wrong, it "forgets"; if the movement is wrong, it fails. At times, the leadership of a movement looks for a "theoretical alibi", that is, something that supports and gives coherence to its practice, and goes to the academy to stock up on it. In these cases the theory is nothing more than an uncritical apology and with some rhetoric.
We believe that a movement should produce its own theoretical reflection (beware: not its apology). In it you can incorporate what is impossible in a desk theorist, namely, the transformative practice of that movement.
We prefer to listen and discuss with those who analyze and reflect theoretically in and with movements or organizations, and not outside of them or, what is worse, at the expense of those movements. However, we strive to hear all voices, paying attention not to who is speaking but where they are being spoken from.
In our theoretical reflections we speak of what we see as trends, not fait accompli or inevitable. Trends that not only have not become homogeneous and hegemonic (yet), but can (and should) be reversed.
Our theoretical reflection as Zapatistas is not usually about ourselves, but about the reality in which we move. And it is also approximate and limited in time, space, concepts and the structure of those concepts. That is why we reject claims of universality and eternity in what we say and do.
The answers to the questions about Zapatismo are not in our theoretical reflections and analyzes, but in our practice. And, in our case, the practice has a strong moral, ethical charge. That is, we try (not always with success, it is true) an action not only according to a theoretical analysis, but also, and above all, according to what we consider to be our duty. We try to be consistent, always. Perhaps that is why we are not pragmatists (another way of saying "a practice without theory and without principles").
The avant-gardes feel the duty to direct something or someone (and in this sense they have many similarities with academic theorists). The vanguards propose to lead and work for it. Some are even willing to pay the costs of errors and deviations from their political work. Not the academy.
We feel that our duty is to initiate, follow, accompany, find and open spaces for something and someone, ourselves included.
A tour, even if it is merely illustrative, of the different resistances in a nation or on the planet is not just an inventory, there they are guessed, more than present, future.
Those who are part of that journey and who does the inventory, can discover things that those who add and subtract on the desks of the social sciences cannot see, namely, that the walker and his step matter, but above all the way, the course, the trend matter. By pointing out and analyzing, arguing and polemicizing, we not only do it to know what is happening and understand it, but also, and above all, to try to transform it.
Theoretical reflection on the theory is called "Metatheory". The Metatheory of the Zapatistas is our practice.
II. The National State and the polis
In the agonizing calendar of the National States, the political class was the one who had the power of decision. A Power that did take into account economic, ideological, and social power, but maintained relative autonomy with respect to them. This relative autonomy gave it the ability to "see beyond" and lead national societies towards that future. In that future, economic power not only remained power, it was more powerful.
In the art of politics, the artist of the polis, the ruler, was then a specialized conductor, knowledgeable in the sciences and human arts, including the military. The wisdom of governing consisted in the proper management of the different resources of the State. The greater or lesser recurrence to one or more of these resources, defined the style of government. Balance of administration, politics and repression, an advanced democracy. Lots of politics, little administration and covert repression, a populist regime. Much repression and no politics and administration, a military dictatorship.
At that time, in the international division of labor, countries with developed capitalism had men (or women) of the State as rulers; countries with deformed capitalism, fell to gorilla governments. Military dictatorships represented the true face of modernity: an animal face, thirsty for blood. Democracies were not only a mask that hid that brutal essence, they also prepared nations for a new stage where money found better conditions for growth.
Globalization, that is, the globalization of the world, is not only marked by the digital technological revolution. The ever present internationalist will for Money found means and conditions to destroy the obstacles that prevented it from fulfilling its vocation: to conquer the entire planet with its logic. Some of these obstacles, the borders and the National States, suffered and are suffering from a world war (IV). The Nation States face this war lacking economic, political, military, ideological resources and, as the recent wars and free trade agreements show, legal defenses.
History did not end with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the socialist camp. The New World Order is still an objective in the order of battle of money, but in the field already lies, dying and waiting for the arrival of help, the National State.
We call "Power society" the leadership group that has displaced the political class from making fundamental decisions. It is a group that not only holds economic power and not only in a nation. More than organically agglutinated (according to the model of "joint stock company), the" society of Power "is made up of sharing common objectives and methods. Still in the process of formation and consolidation, the" society of Power "tries to fill the void left by Nation States and their political classes. The "society of Power" controls financial organizations (and, therefore, entire countries), the media, industrial and commercial corporations, educational centers, armies and public and private police. Power "wants a World State with a Supranational government, but does not work on its construction.
Globalization has meant a traumatic experience for humanity, yes, but above all for the society of Power. Burdened by the effort of moving, without any mediation, from the neighborhoods or communities to the Hyper-Polis, from the local to the global, and while the Supranational government is being built, the society of Power takes refuge again in a National State that faints. The National State of the society of Power only appears to have a vigor that is very schizophrenic. A hologram, that is the Nation State in the metropolis.
Maintained for decades as the benchmark of stability, the National State tends to cease to exist, but its hologram remains fueled by the dogmas that struggle to fill the void not only produced by globalization, but also highlighted by it. The globalization of the world in time and space is, for the Power, something that has not just been digested. The "others" are no longer "elsewhere", but everywhere and at all times. And for the Power the "other" is a threat. How to face this threat? Raising the hologram of the Nation and denouncing the "other" as an aggressor. Wasn't one of Mr. Bush's arguments for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that both threatened the American "nation"? But outside the "reality" created by CNN, the flags flying in Kabul and Baghdad are not those of the stars and stripes, but those of large multinational corporations.
In the hologram of the Nation State, the fallacy par excellence of modernity, c´est a dire, "individual freedom" has been imprisoned in a prison that is not less oppressive because of its global nature. The individual becomes blurred in such a way that not even the image of the "heroes" of yesteryear can offer him the least hope of standing out. The "self made man" no longer exists, and since it is unthinkable to speak of "self made corporation", social expectation is adrift. What is the hope? Back to the dispute over the street, the neighborhood? Nor has fragmentation been so ruthless and uncontrolled that even those minimal units of identity are not stable. The family-house? Where and how? If television entered as queen through the front door, the internet entered as a coup through the cleft of cyber space. In days gone by, almost every house on the planet was invaded by British and American troops who occupied Iraq.
The Nation State that now abrogates the title of "the divine hand of God" (the United States of America), exists only on television, on the radio, in some newspapers and magazines & # 8230 ;, and in theaters. In the dream factory of the large media consortia, the presidents are intelligent and friendly, justice always triumphs; the community defeats the tyrant, rebellion is a prompt and effective response to arbitrariness, and the "and they lived very happily" continues to be the end promised to national society. But in reality, things are quite the opposite.
Where are the heroes of the invasion of Afghanistan? Where are those of the occupation of Iraq? I mean, September 11, 2001 had its heroes, New York City firefighters and residents working to rescue the victims of the messianic delusion. But these real heroes do not serve the Power, so they were quickly forgotten. For Power, the "hero" is the one who conquers (that is, destroys), not the one who saves (that is, builds). The image of the ash-covered firefighter, working through the rubble of the twin towers in New York, was replaced by that of the war tank pulling the statue of Hussein in Baghdad.
The modern polis (I use the term "polis" instead of "city" to emphasize that I am referring to an urban space of economic, ideological, cultural, religious and political relations) has only the classical (Plato), the superficial image and frivolous of the sheep (the people) and the shepherd (the ruler).
But modernity completely upset the Platonic image. Now it is an industrial complex: some sheep are sheared and others are slaughtered for food, the "sick" are isolated, eliminated and "burned" so that they do not contaminate the rest.
Neoliberalism presented itself as the effective administration of that slaughterhouse-corral mixture that is the polis, but pointing out that efficiency was only possible by breaking the borders of the polis and extending them (that is, invading) the entire planet: the Hyper- Polis.
But it turns out that the "administrator" (the ruler-shepherd) has gone mad and has decided to slaughter all the sheep, even though the owner cannot eat all & # 8230; and although there are no sheep left to shear, or to slaughter tomorrow. The old politician, the one of yesteryear (and I don't mean the one from "before Christ", but the one at the end of the 20th century), specialized in maintaining the conditions for the growth of the flock and that there were sheep for one thing and another, and, furthermore, that the sheep did not rebel.
The neo-politician is no longer a "cultured" shepherd, he is a silly and ignorant wolf (who does not even hide behind a sheepskin) who is content to eat the part of the herd that they give him, but he has abandoned his tasks fundamental. The herd will soon disappear & # 8230; or in rebelling.
Could you think that what it is about is not to "humanize" the corral-factory-slaughterhouse of the modern polis, but to destroy that logic, tear off the sheepskin and, without sheep, discover that the "shepherd-butcher -Teacher "is not only useless, but does it get in the way?
The logic of the National States was (broadly speaking): a polis-city brings together a territory (and not the other way around), a province brings together a series of polis, a nation brings together a series of provinces. Ergo, the polis-city was the basic cell of the Nation-State and the Polis-Capital imposed its logic on the rest of the polis.
There was then a kind of common cause, one or more elements that united that Polis within itself, just as there were elements that united the Nation State (territory, language, currency, legal-political system, culture, history, etc.). These elements have been eroded and dynamited (often not figuratively) by globalization.
But what about the polis in the current wear (almost until the disappearance) of the National State? And what came first? The Polis or the National State? The wear of one or the other? It does not matter, at least not for what I say now. If the fragmentation (and, therefore, the tendency to disappear) of the National State is due to the fragmentation of the polis or vice versa, that is not the issue I am talking about.
As in the National State, in the Polis what brought it together has been lost. Each Polis is nothing more than a disorderly and chaotic fragmentation, a superposition of polis that are not only different from each other, but, not infrequently, opposite.
The Power of Money requires a special space that is not only a mirror of its greatness and well-being, but also protects it from the "other" polis (those of the "others") that are around it and "threaten it. ". These "other" polis are not like the barbarian communities of yore. The Money Polis tries to incorporate them into its logic and needs them, but at the same time, it fears them.
Where before there was a National State (or still contending for space with it) there is now a disorderly accumulation of Polis. The Money Cops in the world are the "houses" of the "Power society." However, where before there was a legal and institutional system that regulated the internal life of the nation states and the relationship between them (international legal structure), now there is nothing.
The international legal system is obsolete, and its place is being taken by the spontaneous "legal" system of Capital: brutal and ruthless competition with any means, including war.
What are the public security programs of cities if not the protection of those who have everything from those who have nothing? "Mutatis mutandi", national security programs are no longer national against other nations, but against everything and everywhere. The image of the city surrounded (and threatened) by belts of misery and the image of the nation harassed by other countries, have begun to transform. Poverty and nonconformity (those "others" who do not have the good taste to disappear) are no longer in the periphery, but can be seen almost anywhere in the cities & # 8230; and of the countries.
What I am pointing out is that the "reordering", which is practiced in the governments of the polis, of these fragments, as a test or "training" for the national reordering, is useless. Because what it is about, rather than rearranging, is isolating the "harmful" fragments and mitigating the impact that their claims, struggles and resistance may have on the money polis.
Whoever governs the city only manages the process of fragmentation of the polis, waiting to go on to administer the process of national fragmentation.
The privatization of space in cities is nothing more than fear violating its own provisions. The polis has become an anarchic space of islands. The "coexistence" among the few is possible because of the common fear they have of the "other". Long live the private streets! Private colonies, cities, provinces, nations, the world will follow & # 8230; all privatized, that is, isolated and protected from the "other". But the wealthy neighbor will soon also be an "other".
What nuclear war did not do, corporations can. Destroy everything, even what gives them wealth.
A world where no world fits, not even your own. This is the project of the Hyper-Polis that is already rising on the rubble of the Nation State.
Are there no longer national causes that unite the polis, the nations, the societies? Or are there no longer politicians capable of raising these causes? The discredit of politics is more than that: it has some hatred and resentment. The common citizen is passing, in a tendency, from indifference to the outrages of the political class, to a rejection that takes on increasingly "expressive" forms. The "flock" resists the new logic.
The politician of yesteryear defined the common task. The modern man tries and fails, why? Perhaps because he himself has wrought his discredit or, rather, rather than prostituting a cause, he has prostituted a task.
Lacking reality as a reference, the modern political class is manufactured from a hologram not the size of its aspirations, but the size of its current calendar: whoever governs a town has not given up governing a city, a province, a nation, the whole world, it's just that your today determines a village & # 8230; and you have to wait for the next elections for the next step.
If the National State previously had the ability to "see beyond" and project the necessary conditions for capital to reproduce "in crescendo" and to help it overcome its periodic crises, the destruction of its fundamental bases prevents it from fulfilling that task. .
The social "ship" has been adrift and the problem is not only the lack of a capable captain, it turns out that the rudder has been stolen and it is nowhere to be found.
If the money was dynamite, the "workers" of the demolition were the politicians. By destroying the bases of the National State, the traditional political class also destroyed its alibi: the all-powerful athletes of politics now look surprised and incredulous & # 8230; a silly merchant, without any notion of the arts of the state, has not even defeated them, he simply supplanted them.
This traditional political class is incapable of rebuilding the bases of the National State. Like a bird of prey, it is content to feed on the spoils of countries, and feeds on the mud and blood on which the empire of money is built. While you get fat, the Lord of Money waits at the table & # 8230;
Market freedom has undergone a terrible metamorphosis: now you are free to choose which shopping center to go to, but the store is the same and the brand of the product is the same. The fallacious freedom originating in the tyranny of the commodity, "free supply and free demand" has been shattered.
The foundations of "Western democracy" have been dynamited. Campaigns and elections are held on its rubble. The electoral fireworks shine very high, so much so that it does not even manage to illuminate a little the ruins that cover the political task.
In the same way, the backbone of government work, the State Reason, is no longer useful, now it is the Market Reason that directs politics. Why employ politicians if marketers better understand the new logic of Power?
The politician, that is, the professional of the State, has been supplanted by the manager. Thus, the vision of the State is turned upside down into a marketing vision (the manager is nothing more than a foreman of yesteryear, who firmly "believes" that the success of the company is his own success) and the horizon is shortened, not only in distance, also in its dimension.
The deputies and senators no longer make laws, that work is carried out by the "lobbies" of advisers and consultants.
Orphans and widowers, traditional politicians and their intellectuals pull their hair (the ones they still have) and try new alibis over and over again to offer them on the market for ideas: it is useless, there are plenty of sellers and there are no buyers.
Going to the traditional political class as an "ally" in the resistance struggle is a good exercise & # 8230; of nostalgia. Going to the neo-politicians is a symptom of schizophrenia. Up there there is nothing to do, except play that maybe something can be done.
There are those who are dedicated to imagining that the rudder exists and to dispute its possession. There are those who look for the rudder, sure that it was somewhere. And there are those who make an island not a haven for self-satisfaction, but a boat to meet another island and another and another & # 8230;
In the postmodern stress of the society of Power, war is the couch. The catharsis of death and destruction relieves but does not cure. The current crises are worse than those of the past, and, therefore, the radical solution that Power gives for them, war, is worse than those of yesteryear.
Now, the biggest fraud in human history, globalization, doesn't even have the grace to try to justify itself. Thousands of years after the emergence of the word, and with it, of reason, force once again occupies the decisive and decisive place.
In the history of the consolidation of Power, human coexistence became coexistence. And this one at war. The dominant-dominated pair now defines the world community and claims to be the new criterion of "humanity" for even the most dispersed fragments of global society.
The void left by statesmen is filled, in the hologram of the National State, by managers and careerists; But in the apparent order of capital, the military of companies (a new generation that not only reads and applies Tzun Tzu, but also has the material means to carry out their movements and maneuvers) incorporate military warfare (to differentiate it from economic wars , ideological, psychological, diplomatic, etc.) as one more element of its market strategy.
The logic of the market (more profits always and at all costs) prevails over the old logic of war (destroying the opponent's combat capacity). International law then gets in the way and either must be ignored or it must be destroyed. The time for plausible justifications is over, now there is not even much emphasis on the "moral" and even "political" justifications of war. International organizations are useless and expensive monuments.
For the society of Power, the human being can be a client or a criminal. To adocen the first and eliminate the second, the politician gives a legal face to the illegitimate violence of Power. War no longer needs laws that "justify" or "endorse" it, it is enough for politicians to declare it and sign the orders. If the United States government has abrogated the role of "Police" of the Hyper-Polis, it would be necessary to ask what order it wants to maintain, what property it should defend, what criminals it should imprison, and what law gives coherence and order to its actions. . That is, who are the "others" against whom he must protect society from Power.
There is no worse general to conduct a war than a military man, that is why, in the past, the great generals, the winners of wars (not those who fought battles), were politicians, statesmen. But if there are no more of these, then who is leading the current battle of world conquest? I doubt that anyone in their right mind can argue that Bush or Rumsfeld led the war in Iraq.
So either they are the military who run or they are not military. If they are, the result will start to show shortly. The military man is not satisfied until he totally destroys his opponent. Totally, that is, not to defeat it, but to disappear it, finish it, annihilate it. Thus the solution to the crisis is only the prelude to a greater crisis, a horror that is impossible to describe in words.
If they are not military, then who runs? Corporations, one might answer. Pero éstas tienen lógicas que se sobreponen a las de los individuos y los conducen. Como un ente con vida e inteligencia propia, la corporación alecciona a sus miembros para ir en tal dirección. ¿Cuál? La de la ganancia. En esta lógica, el dinero se dirige a donde obtiene más condiciones de ganancia rápida, creciente y continua. ¿Se dirigirá entonces a donde menos hay o a donde más hay? Sí, la corporación irá, tendencialmente, en contra de otra corporación.
¿Resolverá el resultado de la guerra en Irak la crisis que enfrentan las grandes corporaciones? No, o cuando menos no en lo inmediato. El efecto distractor de un conflicto para las expectativas del Estado-Nacional-Con-Aspiraciones-A-Ser-Supranacional, tiene la duración de un spot televisivo.
"Ya ganamos en Irak", dirán los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos, "¿y ahora? ¿Otra guerra? ¿En dónde? ¿Es esto el nuevo orden mundial? ¿Una guerra en todas partes y a todas horas, sólo interrumpida por los anuncios comerciales?"
V. La cultura
Postrada en el diván de la guerra, la sociedad del Poder baraja sus complejos y fantasmas. Unos y otros tienen muchos nombres y muchos rostros, pero un común denominador: "el otro". Ese "otro" que, hasta antes de la globalización, estaba lejos en tiempo y espacio, pero que la construcción desordenada de la Hiper-Polis lo ha traído al "backyard", al patio trasero de la sociedad del Poder.
La cultura del "otro" se vuelve el espejo odiado. Pero no porque refleje al poder en su crueldad inhumana, sino porque cuenta la historia del "otro". El diferente que no sólo no depende del "yo" del Poder, sino que también tiene su propia historia y esplendor sin siquiera haberse dado cuenta de la existencia del "yo" o haber supuesto su futura aparición.
En la sociedad del Poder, el fracaso del hombre en la convivencia, su ser en el ser colectivo, se oculta detrás del éxito individual. Pero éste último, oculta a su vez que ese éxito es posible por la destrucción del otro, del ser colectivo. Durante décadas, en el imaginario del Poder, el colectivo ocupó el lugar del mal, arbitrario, iracundo, cruel, implacable. El "otro" es el rostro del rebelde Luzbel en la nueva "Biblia" del Poder (que no predica la redención, sino la sumisión) y es necesario expulsarlo de nuevo del paraíso. En el papel de la espada flamígera, las "smart bombs".
El rostro del "otro" es su cultura, ahí está su diferencia. Lengua, creencias, valores, tradiciones, historias, se hacen cuerpo colectivo en una Nación y le permiten diferenciarse de otras y, con base en esa diferencia, relacionarse con otras. Una Nación sin cultura es una entidad sin rostro, es decir, sin ojos, sin oídos, sin nariz, sin boca… y sin cerebro.
Destruir la cultura del "otro" es la forma más contundente de eliminarlo. El saqueo de las riquezas culturales en Irak no fue producto de la desatención o desinterés de las tropas de ocupación. Fue una acción militar más en el plan de guerra.
En las grandes guerras, los grandes tiranos y genocidas dedican esfuerzos especiales a la destrucción cultural. La semejanza entre la fobia a la cultura de Hitler y la de Bush no se debe a que manifiesten síntomEn las grandes guerras, los grandes tiranos y genocidas dedican esfuerzos especiales a la destrucción cultural. La semejanza entre la fobia a la cultura de Hitler y la de Bush no se debe a que manifiesten síntomas comunes de locura. La semejanza está en los proyectos de mundialización que animaron a uno y dirigen al otro.
La cultura es de las pocas cosas que mantienen aún respirando al Estado Nacional. La eliminación de la cultura será el tiro de gracia. Al funeral nadie asistirá y no por falta de conocimiento, sino de "raiting".
VI. Manifiestos y manifestaciones
El acto guerrero fundacional del nuevo siglo no es el desmoronamiento de las torres gemelas, pero tampoco la caída sin gracia ni espectáculo de la estatua de Hussein. El siglo XXI arranca con el "NO A LA GUERRA" globalizado que devolvió a la humanidad su esencia y la aglutinó en una causa. Como nunca antes en la historia de la humanidad, el planeta fue sacudido por este "NO".
Desde intelectuales de todas las tallas, hasta habitantes iletrados de rincones ignorados de la tierra, el "NO" se convirtió en puente que unió comunidades, pueblos, villas, ciudades, provincias, países, continentes. En manifiestos y manifestaciones, el "NO" buscó la reivindicación de la razón frente a la fuerza.
Aunque ese "NO" se apagó en parte con la ocupación de Bagdad, hay más de esperanza que de impotencia en su eco. Sin embargo, algunos se han desplazado en el terreno teórico y han cambiado la pregunta "¿Qué hacer para detener la Guerra?", por esta otra: "¿Dónde será la próxima invasión?".
Hay quien sostiene, ingenuo, que la declaración del gobierno de EU de que no hará nada contra Cuba, demuestra que no hay que temer una acción militar norteamericana en contra de la isla caribeña. Los deseos del gobierno norteamericano de invadir y ocupar Cuba son reales, pero son algo más que deseos. Son ya planes con rutas, tiempos, contingentes, etapas, objetivos parciales y sucesivos. Cuba no es sólo un territorio a conquistar, es, sobre todo, una afrenta. Una abolladura intolerable en el lujoso automóvil de la modernidad neoliberal. Y los marines son los hojalateros. Si esos planes se concretan, ya se verá, como ahora en Irak, que el objetivo no era derrocar al señor Castro Ruz, ni siquiera imponer un cambio de régimen político.
La invasión y ocupación de Cuba (o de cualquier otro punto de la geografía mundial) no requiere de los intelectuales "sorprendidos" de las acciones de un Estado Nacional (acaso el último que se mantiene como tal en América Latina) para control interno.
Si el gobierno norteamericano no se conmovió siquiera por el tibio rechazo de la ONU y de los gobiernos del primer mundo, ni se inmutó con la condena explícita de millones de seres en todo el planeta, no lo animarán ni detendrán las palabras de rechazo o aliento de los intelectuales (hablando de Cuba, en fechas recientes se conoció la "heroica" acción de soldados israe-líes: ejecutaron a un palestino con un tiro en la nuca. El palestino tenía 17 meses de edad. ¿Hubo alguna declaración, algún manifiesto con firmas indignadas? ¿Horror selectivo? ¿Cansancio del corazón? ¿O el "condenamos en cualquier parte y de quien sea" incluye ya y para siempre todas y cada una de las dosis de terror que desde arriba indigestan a los de abajo? ¿Basta decir una vez "no"?).
Tampoco lo detendrán las mo-vilizaciones de protesta, por muy masivas y continuas que sean, aún dentro de la Unión Americana.
Quiero decir: NO SÓLO.
Un elemento fundamental es la capacidad de resistencia del agredido, la inteligencia para combinar formas de resistir, y, algo que puede sonar "subjetivo", la decisión de los seres humanos agredidos. El territorio a conquistar (llámese Siria, Cuba, Irán, montañas del sureste mexicano) tendría así que convertirse en un territorio en resistencia. Y no me refiero a la cantidad de trincheras, armas, trampas caza-bobos y sistemas de seguridad (que son, sin embargo, también necesarias), sino a la disposición (la "Moral" dirán algunos) de esos seres humanos para resistir.
VII. La resistencia
Las crisis preceden a la toma de conciencia de su existencia, pero la reflexión sobre los resultados o salidas de esas crisis se convierten en acciones políticas. El rechazo a la clase política no es un rechazo al hacer política, sino a una forma de hacerla.
El hecho de que, en el muy limitado horizonte del calendario del Poder, no aparezca definida una nueva forma de hacer política no significa que ésta no esté ya andando en pocos o en muchos de los fragmentos de las sociedades en todo el mundo.
Todas las resistencias, en la historia de la humanidad, han parecido inútiles no sólo la víspera, sino también ya avanzada la noche de la agresión, pero el tiempo corre, paradójicamente, a su favor si es concebida para ello.
Podrán caer muchas estatuas, pero si la decisión de generaciones se mantiene y alimenta, el triunfo de la resistencia es posible. No tendrá fecha precisa ni habrá desfiles fastuosos, pero el desgaste previsible de un aparato que convierte su propia maquinaria en su proyecto de nuevo orden, terminará por ser total.
No estoy predicando la esperanza hueca, sino recordando un poco de historia mundial y, en cada país, un poco de historia nacional.
Vamos a vencer, no porque sea nuestro destino o porque así esté escrito en nuestras respec-tivas biblias rebeldes o revolucionarias, sino porque estamos trabajando y luchando para eso.
Para ello es necesario un poco de respeto al otro que en otro lado resiste en su ser otro, un mucho de humildad para recordar que se puede aprender todavía mucho de ese ser otro, y sabiduría para no copiar sino producir una teoría y una práctica que no incluyan la soberbia en sus principios, sino que reconozca sus horizontes y las herramientas que sirven para esos horizontes.
No se trata de solidificar las estatuas existentes, sino trabajar por un mundo donde las estatuas sirvan sólo para que los pájaros se caguen en ellas.
Un mundo donde quepan muchas resistencias. No una internacional de la resistencia, sino una bandera policroma, una melodía con muchas tonadas. Si aparece di-sonante es sólo porque el calendario de abajo está todavía por armar la partitura donde cada nota encontrará su lugar, su volumen y, sobre todo, su liga con las otras notas.
La historia está lejos de terminar. En el futuro, las convivencias serán posibles, no por las guerras que pretendieron dominar al otro, sino por los "no" que dieron a los seres humanos, como antes en la prehistoria, una causa común y, con ella, una esperanza: la de la supervivencia… por la humanidad, contra el neoliberalismo.
* Desde las montañas del Sureste Mexicano.
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos.