Recently, the EZLN updated their political approach by proposing ‘the Common and Non-Property’ as guiding principles for shared values and practices. This concept transcends the limited military perspective on war and peace. It emphasizes developing and maintaining relationships that challenge capitalist modernity from the grassroots level through dialogue with ecological commons. In his contribution to the “Pluriverse of Peace” series, Felix Krawczyk discusses how this method of constructing peace can help overcome various impasses of the global polycrisis.
*
Activist and anthropologist Arturo Escobar is well known for coining the term pluriverse. He emphasizes that the term reflects the attitude of the Zapatista Liberation Movement (EZLN – Spanish: Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional) in Chiapas, southeastern Mexico.
The predominantly Mayan indigenous movement rose up in 1994 against neoliberal policies, exploitation, and state oppression. Through this uprising, the Zapatistas demanded dignity, autonomy, and the right to self-determination. Since then, the Zapatistas have established autonomous structures, independent of the state, including a self-administered education and healthcare system, as well as grassroots democratic forms of self-government. However, their political struggle extends beyond improving their own situation. This is evident in their internationalist initiatives and the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle. It states: “[W]e want to tell the world that we want to make you large, so large that all those worlds will fit, those worlds which are resisting […].”
For Escobar, this idea is a response to capitalist modernity. Capitalist modernity knows only one world and one way of being, which it seeks to impose on everyone. This world is characterized by domination and is rationalistic, liberal, secular, heteropatriarchal, and white. Thus, it is not merely a conflict between different cultures, but rather a fundamental difference in understanding being – a difference in ontology. In this sense, the EZLN’s statement, “We exist. They have not conquered us,” refers to a world developed and preserved through more than 500 years of the Pueblos Originarios’ (the ‘original peoples’) resistance to colonial rule. The Zapatistas emphasize that “resistance means not only enduring but also constructing something different.”
Perspectives in between
For the EZLN, the struggle is fought under the slogan “Lucha por la vida, la libertad y la justicia” – a struggle for and because of life, freedom, and justice. Many will ask: For whom? In light of the genocide in Gaza and the war in Ukraine, the Zapatistas’ perspective becomes apparent. Some on the international left show solidarity with Islamist movements such as Hamas or states such as Iran in resistance to the genocide in Palestine. Others, on the other hand, view NATO as the greatest threat and support Russia or China. In this regard, the activist Raúl Zibechi asks a central question: “Can we not accept that wars between major states are intercapitalist?”
What would be the point of fighting for a different world while allying with state-capitalist regimes or authoritarian movements? Islamists also question capitalist modernity, but they are not fighting for a pluriverse; rather, they are fighting for a fundamentalist, patriarchal state. The EZLN takes a clearly humanistic position. One of its communiqués states: “Ni Netanyahu, ni Hamas” – neither Netanyahu nor Hamas. Further, “El pueblo palestino y el pueblo israelí vivirán” – the Palestinian and Israeli peoples will live.
Zapatista perspectives on war
The concept of the pluriverse is based on the experiences and struggles of the EZLN, as well as those of many other anti-systemic movements and related struggles for autonomous territories. Below, I will attempt to outline some of the Zapatistas’ perspectives on war and its connection to capitalism. The EZLN’s analysis of capitalism is constantly evolving. This becomes clear when they describe capitalism as a hydra. In Greek mythology, the Hydra is able to adapt and change. What I present here is only a brief overview intended to inspire further thought.
The EZLN refers to neoliberalism as the fourth world war. Official historiography speaks only of two world wars and a ‘Cold War.’ However, from a Zapatista perspective, the so-called Cold War was the third world war. Even though the fighting did not occur in capitalist centers, 149 military conflicts took place during this period, resulting in over 22 million deaths. These wars and their arms production were also crucial to economic development because they extended the war economy into peacetime in capitalist centers.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union opened up new markets, the conquest of which ushered in a new world war, the fourth. This is embedded in “the growing importance of no-man’s-lands (arising out of the collapse of the Eastern bloc countries), the expansion of a number of major powers (the United States, the European Union and Japan), a world economic crisis and a new technical revolution based on information technology.” According to the EZLN, this neoliberal reorganization of the world is reminiscent of the reorganization that accompanied the beginning of colonialism. In this sense, neoliberalism brings with it a threefold destruction. It destroys subjectivities, more-than-human nature, and the social fabric. These are being reorganized under new market-based logics, actors, and goals.
Ontological occupation
Today, this new order in the Global South is often accompanied by what Escobar calls “ontological occupation.” Regarding the climate crisis, this can be seen in the expansion of carbon markets and CO₂ storage plantations, for example. Capitalism is in crisis and is trying to compensate by opening new markets and expropriating commons. Escobar refers to the strongest form of ontological occupation in this context as the “plantation form” because it virtually erases relationships within the forest world. In this sense, nature is viewed as a static, dead resource. This corresponds to a dualistic ontology that separates humans from more-than-human nature.
In contrast, relational ontologies are not based on individual entities, but on their connections. Following Tim Ingold, Escobar describes this relational world as a “world without objects”: a world in which living beings of all kinds create the conditions for each other’s existence. For the Zapatista communities of Mayan indigenous origin, this relational ontology is manifested in the cosmovision of the ch’ulel, which all entities share. The ch’ulel determines an entity’s potential and its relationships with other beings. However, the ch’ulel is not simply given; it must be created. Some assume that very young children do not yet possess a ch’ulel because they have not developed an awareness of the world and their place in it. Children create their ch’ulel by learning to establish respectful relationships with human and non-human entities.
Against this backdrop, it becomes clear that plantations are incompatible with a relational ontology because they are based on practices and ways of life that conflict with relational worlds. In relational worlds, defending the commons, territory, and life are one and the same. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the EZLN’s current political proposal is: “The common and non-property.” This concept transcends an “individually constituted reality” and emphasizes relationships—not only between individuals, but also in relation to social conditions. As Escobar puts it: “Commons exist in these relational worlds, not in worlds that are imagined as inert and waiting to be occupied.”
This ontological occupation is not accepted without resistance, of course, and manifests itself in conflicts and struggles around the world. However, the affected pueblos, communities, and movements do not primarily respond militarily. Rather, they practice, as I would argue, ontological (re-)construction. Ontological (re-)construction describes a process of reappropriation to rebuild the relationship to the land and interpersonal connections. This process is becoming increasingly relevant because, when reclaiming territories after conflicts, communities are often confronted with degraded ecosystems and destroyed social structures.
Activist Esteban del Cerro writes, “From north to south, Indigenous Peoples echo the Zapatista call for the Common and Non-Property. The recuperation of land makes it clear that the insurgents’ path is successful. The uprising shows us that land recovery gives us hope for a new way of relating to the living, even in the trenches.”
There are countless examples of this, not only in Latin America but also in Europe. One example is the Montes Veciñais en Man Común in Galicia. During the Franco dictatorship, these territories were expropriated, ecosystems were degraded, and the social fabric nourished by the communal organization of the territory was weakened. After recovering the territories, people faced the challenge of rebuilding both the ecosystem and respectful relationships with it, as well as social structures.
The common and non-property
In my opinion, the EZLN addresses the concept of a pluriverse of peace through its political proposal, “the Common and Non-Property.” As I argued above, this concept transcends a limited military perspective on war and peace, focusing on the development and maintenance of relationships that challenge capitalist modernity from the grassroots level. Therefore, the EZLN offers a proposal for constructing peace, “Peace with Justice and Dignity – Paz con Justicia y Dignidad,” which transcends appealing to state actors.
The land regained in the Zapatista uprising of 1994 will continue to be organized communally and worked collectively – but not exclusively for Zapatista autonomous communities anymore, but also for supporters of official political parties. A prior agreement with the Zapatista Autonomous Local Governments (GAL) is necessary for this, stipulating that the land be used collectively and not capitalized. This means that the land belongs to no one; it is ‘no man’s land.’ It cannot be sold or leased, only ‘borrowed.’ What is produced collectively there is harvested for the benefit of the respective collective. This strengthens the sense of community among those involved and creates relationships of solidarity beyond the state and capital. This practice, which has long existed in some Zapatista communities, is to be further expanded and socialized.
Note on the term ‘territory’: Here, the term ‘territory’ is used in a way that challenges its nationalistic and ethnic interpretations. In this sense, it refers less to property and more to the appropriation of soil and land through cultural, agricultural, ecological, and ritual practices.
Note on the current situation: The Mexican state, the state government of Chiapas, corporations, and organized crime do not like these anti-capitalist practices. A worldwide protest is already forming against the current attacks on the Zapatista communities. The Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico, are not alone. Viva el Común y la No Propiedad – Long live the commons and non-property!
This was a very informative post. I appreciate the time you took to write it.
It’s refreshing to find something that feels honest and genuinely useful. Thanks for sharing your knowledge in such a clear way.
This post cleared up so many questions for me.
This is exactly the kind of content I’ve been searching for.