The
ruling classes have systematically downplayed the Indian question in the history
of our country. This is in the interests of oppression and exploitation.
Our party argues, despite the
propaganda developed by the representatives of the capital, its institutions and
their spokespersons, that the Indian question is a problem of today and is
closely linked to the class struggle. The existence of the Indian movement for
the struggle and resistance, which is supported by a significant fraction of the
12 million Indians living in our country, bears witness of the persistence of
the Indian problem.
The
alternatives proposed by various political groups to the Indian movement are a
reflection of different underlying class interests. It is known that the ruling
classes push for the policies practiced in the past: the suppression of the
Indians by any means possible, either by violent, legal or diplomatic means
including the infliction neo-Malthusian methods of birth control and forcible
sterilization. The middle strata of the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie
reduce themselves to mongering about humanitarian actions in order to solve the
political, cultural and educational problems of the Indians in our country.
These
tendencies are aware of the fundamental problem of the Indians, basically who
owns the means of production, however, they tend to isolate it from other
aspects of the Indian question and belittle its significance with the purpose of
perpetuating the present state of affairs in the country.
This
discussion has exposed a number of ideologies, which tend to confuse the
national and ethnic character, nature and the historical conditions of the
development of the Indian movement in our country.
It
is a fact that a principle prevails over the material and historical conditions
in this question. The majority of the nations arose with the establishment of
capitalism displaying distinct racial, tribal and ethnic composition. A nation
is defined as “a historically constituted, stable community of people,
formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and
psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.” (1). According to
this definition a nation may not conceal its ethnic, tribal and racial
composition.
An
ethnic group is a group of humans, which has been formed historically on the
basis of common racial, tribal, language backgrounds, of a common territory and
culture. As opposed to the nation, these ethnic groups have local character or
they are spread over a larger territory together with other ethnic groups. It
should be taken into account that many ethnic groups consist of few hundred
members; some of them have few thousand and few of them have few hundreds of
thousands. The largest ethnic groups are the Náhuatl, which have
somewhat over 2 million people and are spread throughout our country, and the Mayas,
over 1.5 million people in similar conditions.
These ethnic groups survived next to other bigger nations thanks to their persistence to preserve their own identity. This resistance is not isolated from the dynamics of the class struggle and the historical development of the nations. The present configuration of Indian ethnic groups in Mexico has undergone a long process of transformation from tribal formations, confederations of tribes and exploited Indian societies. In the course of this historical process certain alien forms of production, distribution and exchange together with other superstructural forms of social organization, religious, cultural and writing forms were assimilated. The fact that these ethnic groups did not evolve into nations in the course of this historical development is pretty clear in our mind: the European colonization established the Mexican nation and imposed severe conditions on the various ethnic groups, which started to dissolve as the capitalism developed.
The
Mexican nation alike other nations in America and the world, has a number of
peculiarities, which are a result of the presence of a diversity of races and
ethnical groups. However, it is necessary to point out that the Mexican nation
is unthinkable without its Indian, European, Asiatic and African roots, not only
due to mixture of races but mainly due to the different contributions to the
national development. We should not ignore irrefutable fact that our Indian
roots are present in the majority of the Mexican society.
In
the course of the historical development of the Mexican nation, we should not
ignore this fact even though the remaining Indian ethnic groups still preserve
certain features that are not shared by the bulk of the Mexican society, such as
the language and culture; our society gets constantly enriched with these Indian
cultural elements. On the other hand, the Indian ethnic groups have assimilated
features of the Mexican nation. This development is not common to all countries,
for in many countries Indians are isolated from development of the main nation
even when the territory they occupy is part of the same state. In many cases the
ruling classes adamantly oppose any attempt of integration of the Indians into
society.
In
our country the contradictions between the ethnic groups and the national
bourgeois State is clearly determined by the domination of the exploiting
classes, by the basis and superstructure of the capitalist system in Mexico.
It
may be pointed out that some nations in the course of the process of its
integration broke away from the ethnic problem without endangering its own
specific features. In our country the ruling classes have forced the Indians to
integrate by loosing their specific features. This is in contrast with a number
of trends with a humanitarian program within the Indian movement, which isolates
the Indian problem from the historical development; it ignores the nature of the
social development, its economic laws and class contradictions by reducing
itself to complaining about the cruelty of the conquerors, colonizers and all
the representatives of the exploiting classes, to the point of fostering
reactionary attitudes against the non-Indian working masses.
This
situation is a result of a fundamental problem, specifically but not uniquely,
the property of the land. It is no secret that forcible expropriation of the
land from the Indians and the formation in its place of private large estate is
one of the major the baseline of the Indian problem.
The
problem of the property of land suggests the following: firstly the large
estate, which belongs mainly to large landlords, to big cattle dealers and
owners of large agro-industries (such as cane, vineyards, wood, coffee, corn,
tomato, forage) and to other big companies, which use the manpower of the
Indians who live nearby. The capitalist not only have control the property on
the means of production, but also over the work force of adults and under age
Indians through a complex web of contractors. Indians are hired for half the
minimum wage to pick the crops of corn, coffee, fruits, in the production of
wooden goods and textiles, etc… The oppression against the Indian peoples,
which has been exerted over centuries, is obviously reflected in their racial,
cultural, religious and administrative features in order to accommodate the
domination of large private property and the forms of exploitation that derived
by the latter; this is the main reason for the economic and social backwardness
of the Indian peoples. The lords of exploitation during feudalism and afterwards
in capitalism forced the Indian peoples into poverty, discrimination and
ignorance.
The
existence of a system of social classes with antagonistic interests within the
Indian ethnic groups is often denied. Also among the Indian there are vivacious
exploiters of other Indians. The Indian ethnic groups are also divided into
social classes and are not alien to the class struggle. Among them we observe
bourgeois elements, middle and poor peasants, retailers, craftsman, proletarians
and also intellectuals.
This
is understandable as the exploiting classes have their agents within the Indian
movement, who falsify the class relations and advocate the thesis that all
Indians are equally exploited. This is favoured by the extreme racial oppression
in our country. Sometimes within the Indian movement there prevails an obsession
with praising the ethnic identity of the Indians with the purpose of preserving
the processes of exploitation and class contradictions, which operate within the
community.
We
should not forget that not all the native Indians think about the ethnic
problem; unfortunately many emigrate to the city or to other regions of the
country and integrate into society and they break up with their past ethnic
background, or they are simply obliged to do so already in their hometown. This
is the type of “solutions” that capitalism has to offer the Indian question,
which are responsible for the ethnic suppression that the Indians are subjected
to by the system.
The
Indian problem is therefore, an economic, social and historical question, which
solution depends first of all upon the solution of the question of the property
on the means of production (2).
Our
Communist Party will never cease to expose bourgeois neo-liberal,
social-democratic tendencies, which are in accord with petty-bourgeois trends;
these put aside the main issue in the Indian question.
In
fact the Indian question embraces a number of ethnic questions of
administrative, educational, cultural and racial characters, which have been
covered by these tendencies. We should give them credit that these questions
have been studied in certain depth, however the main issue has been always
neglected, namely, the access to the ownership the means of production in
general, of the land, the right for an autonomous territory that includes the
demand of expropriation of the large lords, who plunder the Indian peoples.
The Army also plays a major
role in annihilation of the Indian peoples, in terms of physical terror exerted
in the occupied territories. Also the army drafts a large number of Indian youth
and using chauvinist propaganda the army curves the ethnic conscience among the
soldiers.
Nevertheless,
let’s return to the economic question. The integration, which is proposed by
the bourgeoisie, is clear: the Indian ethnical groups are a bother for the
capital to further penetrate territories with important reserves of fuel and
other profitable resources,
The
draft on the native Indians recently approved is clear in this respect; it is
based on the clearest intention of helping capitalist penetration into the
Indian territories, not as a collateral damage but as a central aim. This draft
helps further the penetration of monopolies into the Indian territories, their
exploitation and appropriation of natural resources for it defends the interests
of the bourgeoisie and the state and protects the interests of the large land
owners; it forces the Indian day workers, peasants and craftsmen and middle
intellectuals to fight capitalist “liberties” over the capitalist forms of
property and pushes them further into poverty and proletarisation. Let’s see
“To access, with respect to forms and modalities of property and possession
of land as established by this Constitution and the laws adopted in this matter
and also the rights acquired by third parties or by members of the community,
the use and enjoyment of the natural resources of the places where they inhabit
and that are occupied by the communities, except for those, which correspond to
strategic areas, as specified in this Constitution.
In
this matter the communities should comply with the current legislation.” (3).
Unfortunately,
the Zapatistas – the native Indians in arms – do not consider the
possibility of expropriating large landowners. This left unclear, they only
demand respect, and this way the de facto accept the capitalist exploitation and
deprive the program of the native Indians from its revolutionary core.
The
only consistent alternative consists of the complete appropriation of the Indian
territories by the native Indians, i.e., the petty lots of land, the communal
territories and the land of the great landowners, including the appropriation of
all means of production created with their labour.
From
the political and administrative point of view the capitalist regime is strict;
the Indian peoples are deprived from the right of self-determination. However,
the EZLN (The Zatapista Army of National Liberation) for instance, has been
clear in this respect, more over it has broke up with certain collectivist
tendencies for integration and supports the process of municipalisation. They
will have to face bourgeois administration and their forms of oppression as the
latter reinforce the corrupted administrative, police and legal systems. The
experience in the past with the so-called democratic municipalities is very
instructive in this respect. The municipalisation is one of the characteristic
forms of the bourgeois democratic administration, which prevents the regions
form developing further, and where the defence of private property and of the
principles of bourgeois democracy prevails. Not even the democratic
municipalities have been able to go beyond these principles. The Accords of San
Andres, despite being a fruit of the resistance of the Indian peoples, failed to
surpass this level.
The
development of events are determined by this level of struggle, which undermines
the most genuine and just demand of the right on the property of the means of
production.
One
of the demands put advocated by the Zapatistas and the Native Indian National
Congress is related to the educational system. The State and the bourgeoisie
twist around this type of demands. The ruling classes propose a system of
fellowships in order to undermine among the youth the characteristic cultural
featured of the Indian peoples and the arguments for the militant and
proletarian defence of the ethnic groups. The Zapatistas speak about an
educational system, somewhat independent, but subordinated to the bourgeois
system of education.
Our
party has repeatedly insisted that the way to go is to create the educational
system of the Indian peoples, according to their own needs and culture. This
will not be possible unless the material basis is provided.
If
that were not enough, the Zapatistas and their followers do not seem to realize
that by insisting on the preservation of their customs and their
“cosmo-vision” (which is nothing else but common psychology with regards to
the world, society and every day’s life of every nation in this world) they
reduce themselves to obscurantism, superstition and essentially to idealist
petty-bourgeois thinking with a mixture of elements of authoritarianism. In
place of rescuing the scientific, medical, artistic and cultural contributions
of the community, they overlap them with a thick layer of mystical thinking
contrary to the materialist point of view and the class struggle. This attitude
prevents the Indian people from following the path of the national and
international revolutionary struggle and reduces them to struggling for
short-term demands.
It
is true that the capital is against their “cosmo-vision” and the
Zapatistas’ plea for self-sufficiency, as these represent a barrier against
the way of life advocated by the modern market economy. We do not mean to break
up with the valuable cultural contributions and the psychology of the Indian
people, however, as we pointed out before, we oppose the idealistic thinking,
which helps the Indian accept internal and external oppression and exploitation.
In
conclusion, the Indian problem will not be fully solved without the complete
expropriation of the land of the big landlords and of all the means of
production in use in the territory of the Indian peoples. The land should be
transferred to the Indian ethnic groups for their collective use, with the
establishment of their own forms of democratic and popular government based on
forms of local and regional councils up to the federal level. The Indian ethnic
groups should be represented on the national level on an equal basis with the
rest of the peoples of Mexico; they should enjoy territorial autonomy with their
own educational system at all levels and they should be given the chance to
develop their own progressive culture.
At
this point it is clear that the Indian question will not find a solution unless
the government of the workers, peasants and the people is establishment, as the
only one solid guarantee to accomplish a progressive program. The interests of
the Indian peoples are in harmony with the expropriation of the means and the
establishment of the socialist form of property.
The
native Indian movement has in the working class, the peasantry and the people in
general and in the Communist Party solid and reliable allies. The Popular
Revolutionary Front (PRF) and organization for the struggle for revolutionary
demands; the native Indian movement has a trench for the struggle in the PRF.
Without
the unity of ideology and action of the masses of our country it is not possible
to talk about find a viable solution to the deepest problems of our society.
Social democratic and petty bourgeois trends within the native Indian movement
try to reduce the movement to an isolated organization detached from the mass
movement in our country and to put aside the revolutionary perspective for the
expropriation of the private property and the socialization of the means of
production.
By
means of the popular councils and other organizations, which unite different
ethnic groups, the native Indian movement should take over the struggle for the
land, for the possession of other means of production, which are today in the
hands of the bourgeoisie, for the territorial autonomy and for its own
progressive, democratic and revolutionary native institutions. With this the
native Indian movement will break up with narrow-mindedness and reformism, which
has been inflicted on it, and will unite in the struggle with the working class,
the peasantry and the people of our country in general.
Communist Party of Mexico (M-L)
NOTES