CRACK CAPITALISM

illl'ltt tI SIt'lt 'I ttr ·s, so it is probably more helpful to think of
I Hlt'iwtll n l ily not as an absolute rule but as a constant struggle
'I'tlittSI v 'rticality. Raquel Gutierrez, in her study of the struggles
in Holivia (2009), emphasises that the important thing is not the
ntioprion of any particular model, but the production of shared
horizons of meaning through an effective process of collective
d ·Iib ration. Or, as Colectivo Situaciones put it in an interview
with Marina Sitrin: 'Horizontality is a tool of counter-power
when it's a question. Horizontality is a tool of power when it's
an answer' (2005: 49; 2006: 55),
A related, but slightly different idea is expressed in the
Zapatista principle of mandar obedeciendo ('to command
obeying'), the principle that those in a position of authority
must always obey those over whom they exercise that authority.
Here a degree of non-horizontality is accepted, but the classic
council principle of accountability and instant recallability
ensures that those who (temporarily) occupy positions of responsibility
should obey the wishes of the community. In many cases
(in the tradition of indigenous communities, for example), this
is supplemented by the idea of a rotation of responsibilities:
part of belonging to a community is to accept that one may
be called upon by the community to assume certain communal
responsibilities for certain periods, but always in obedience to
the wishes of the community.
All of this expresses the rejection of representative democracy
as a form of organisation that excludes the represented. All the
organisational forms that we have mentioned can be seen as
developments of direct democracy, not as a set of rules but as
a constant process of experimenting with democratic forms,
ways of overcoming people's inhibitions, ways of controlling
people's aggressions or sexist or racist assumptions. The central
challenge is how to articulate effectively the we do that is the
core of the cracks: how to articulate the we that is the subject
of the movement, as a cohesive and yet open we, and how to
articulate the do, the we as subject, as doer. The Zapatista mandar
obedeciendo ('to command obeying') not only presents a solution
to these questions but indicates oxymoronically a real field of
tension and challenge.6 That the process must be understood
as both exploratory and open is underlined by another central
44