As we have stated before, the five sources of Zapatista theory are: political economy, national reality, other struggles, political positions of the organization and practice. Out of organizational practice come the human relationships necessary both to carry out a work program as well as to live by the ideals which the organization proposes to pursue.
If people are to team from that practice there must a regular, consistent, and objective evaluation of the work of the organization. This process of “evaluation” occurs in different ways. It takes the shape of progress reports of the organization to the membership, decision-making processes and planning at many different levels. It must also occur at the individual level. This takes the form of criticism/self-criticism.
When this process is carried out honestly and consistently it allows the organization to deal with problems caused by individualism. No organization can subsist, consolidate or develop without dealing with its own errors. In addition to the external problems which must be overcome there are internal errors which an organization must overcome. If this does not happen, these errors “gnaw away at its integrity”, and the organization caves in from within.
The problems of individualism are the products of the dominant ideology. Every human being brings with him/her habits, lifestyles, attitudes and cultures which are profoundly individualistic. Since the strength of an organization comes from the strength of its agreements for action, in other words, from its unity, its ability to act collectively; these individual problems must be confronted.
Generally, there are four principal roots of conflict in an organization:
A) Activism – This is manifest when study is abandoned and rejected and there is a complete surrender to practical activity. The militant is thus unable to understand a series of situations which he or she will confront and which could have been dealt with from the basis of scientific theory. Since they have abandoned study, they are unable to understand these Problems. This causes confusion and demoralization. This problem is also expressed in the glorification of particular and isolated experiences gained in practice with which the militant believes he or she can dominate all the knowledge necessary for the organizational process.
B) Dogmatism – This is the opposite of activism. The militant dismisses all practical activities and wants to abide only by what is in books. Those who hold this attitude believe they are self-sufficient. They believe they are more qualified because of the books they have read. Their knowledge is limited because it has never been tested in reality and no one knows how it will apply to the reality they are trying to change. Dogmatism makes the participation of these individual even more difficult because their distance from practice never challenges their ideas.
C) Subjectivism – This is the tendency, to personalize things, to allow the imagination and the emotions free reign. A militant looks at his or her actions, perceptions, and opinions and puts them above, makes them more important, than any organizational or political context. He or she personalizes problems and cannot see how they are connected to the organizational process. There are certain laws which govern the development of an organizational process;
When a militant ignores, does not understand, or refuses to use these scientific laws, he or she is subject to SUBJECTIVISM.
There are three other negative approaches to organizational work that must be noticed here;
All of these are expressed constantly in the errors of an organization They can only be resolved collectively, because they occur within a collective struggle to transform society. It is very important that one compañero correct the other, because if it is not corrected, the organization suffers as a whole:
Reflection and self-criticism constitute a process by which the growth of the organization and its members is evaluated. Its weaknesses can be discovered and progress can be made towards correcting them. To recognize and eliminate a mistake is the goal of criticism and self-criticism. In order to achieve maximum effectiveness, the method should be applied with the following criteria. Criticisms should be:
Opportune – Mistakes should be pointed out immediately, before they can have the opportunity to grow, or become an example to others, or a permanent part of the organizational culture.
Political – Criticisms should be based on the repercussions mistakes have for the organization in its existence and its work.
Constructive—Criticisms should be made with the objective of improving the work of the organization and its members. Errors should not be the only thing pointed out; concrete suggestions for their betterment should also be made.
Personal— Criticisms should be made among and by those affected by the error or situation that gave rise to the criticism. They should not be second-hand criticisms. They should not be vague or indirect.
The process begins with self-criticism. Exposing one’s own errors to the group will inspire and build political trust. Good relationships among compañeros allow plans to move ahead rapidly. When this does not exist, there is a tendency to look for someone to blame and for the organization to stagnate. Organizational relationships are sustained by more than one party, so there must be collective interaction.
Self-criticism implies recognition of the error and simultaneously requires a willingness to correct it. If the same self-criticism is made week after week, the method has become confessional rather than a method of self-correction. Self-criticism should be relevant, sincere, and responsible. In other words, it must be followed up by a real change. It should be expressed with a commitment to correct it.
Criticism must be objective, or based on concrete acts, not about “I felt” or “it seemed”. It should be serious, focused on errors which have consequences and not nitpicking on those who are learning or having difficulty overcoming a problem. It should be fraternal and free of personal attacks, epithets, mockery or laughter. The compañero who committed the error should be allowed to explain why it happened.
When one is criticized, one can accept it without attempting to excuse or justify it. It should not be received as a personal attack, nor should one’s difficulty in accepting it overshadow the political significance of the criticism. One can also refuse to accept it and explain why it was not an error.
The purpose of this method is to prepare new men and women capable of understanding the dynamics of power and constructing new human relationships that are not based on exploitation. It is intended to prepare leaders who are capable of following, workers who are as comfortable using a hammer as a pen and paper, and inventors who can confront a problem not with a sense of martyrdom but with a hunger for knowledge.
The development of cadres will allow the organization to implement its work plan within “new” human relationships. It will provide an example and prepare the next generation of leadership so that the banner is passed on in a manner that is true to its ideals and goals.
“A cadre is an individual who has achieved sufficient political development in order to be able to interpret the general political instructions that the organization develops.
