Throughout the 1990s and into the early part of this decade, Argentina has suffered under the weight of a neoliberal revolution. The foreseeable consequences include rampant unemployment, poverty, wage reductions, state repression, bludgeoned social services, and attacks on unions, among others. A recession that began in 1997 became a full-fledged depression by 2001. Popular resistance to neoliberal assault began in the interior throughout the 1990s, but reached a crescendo of mammoth proportions on December 19 and 20 of 2001 in the streets of the capital, Buenos Aires. Mobilization and self-organization in the barrios and working-class municipalities in the suburbs of the capital persist, and represent one of the key areas of urban contention in the Western hemisphere today.

The Movement of Unemployed Workers (Movimiento de Trabajadores Desocupados, MTD) has represented, unquestionably, the epicenter of popular rebellion during these times. It is organized in a highly decentralized, horizontal, and autonomous manner, rooting itself in the grassroots direct democracy of communities and neighbourhoods.

Following is an interview conducted by Dina Khorasanee with Alberto a member and activist of the MTD Solano. The MTD Solano was, until recently, a member of the Coordinator of Unemployed Workers Anibal Veron (Coordinadora de Trabajadores Desocupados Anibal Veron), and represents a key component of the movement. The movement has made immediate and long-term demands on the State that counter neoliberalism specifically and capitalism more generally, while at the same time, collectively constructing productive enterprises such as bakeries, workshops, community gardens and the like, run by assembly-style direct democracy.

Dina Khorasanee: How many people are there altogether in MTD de Solano?

Alberto: At this moment there are eight hundred people.

DK: Can you explain to me how the MTD de Solano organizes itself?

A: The neighbourhood has its proper form of organization. The assemblies occur weekly. From these assemblies there are groups of companions that are elected, but are all on rotation. So they are not permanent, and it is in accordance with responsibility and commitment, and this is in the area of social bonds and with the input from the rest of the neighbourhood. As well, once a week delegates from different neighbourhoods have a meeting to articulate and interchange ideas, but never to say what the others should do. The decisions are made in each neighbourhood, the proposals and all that has to do with decision-making.

DK: The expansion of the movement makes me think of the multiplicity of the movement and the importance of this multiplicity as a way of enriching the movement, against what many analysts and traditional political actors say; that is, that this multiplicity is more the manifestation of a lack of articulation. What is your opinion about the necessity to maintain multiplicity of the movement between the Movements of the Unemployed and inside the MTD de Solano itself.

A: There have been many tensions, especially in the philosophies of these organizations. But we all make a big effort. We only maintain relations, although all do not get together. Within Anibal Verón there is a group of companions that have relations with human rights groups, etc., with very concrete projects, that sometimes we see people who are closed off. But the situation of repression is a reality, so we make an effort such that this does not mean subordination. Sometimes we are not invited to plans of struggle and also we say that we will not be at all of them, because we have our projects and we cannot be on the street all the time. First, we do not have the material resources like they have. In this we try not to break necessary relations, especially because on one side, we are in a repressive situation and on the other side, we want to make them know that we will not be in a relationship that means subordination. And in this we are clear and there have not been many difficulties. The relationship is tense because sometimes we encounter groups that are very closed.

We in particular, as MTD de Solano, want to protect our space so that never will liberty be restrained. For us liberty and dignity are much appreciated things. Many times this liberty means also accepting that there are moments that produce crisis, conflict, which we accept with pleasure, and we do not try to indoctrinate the companions as some other organizations do, where they put you into a mold. We think that this impoverishes life, impoverishes what we all are looking for, that is a space of liberty where we do not look to mold, where we do not indoctrinate, where we do not put a matrix on things so to take them out all in a line. This happens to many organizations that are very structured, very limited and very rigid. Nor do we propose hegemony. We can coexist in a search that has to do with counter-power. We do not want capitalism. From there and on we are all in agreement. I mean being capitalist in the sense of reproducing it or going to elections. We do not need to be institutionalized. These are the pillars of agreement. After this we accept variety as richness, never as a limitation.

DK: To think of not having plans or programs is something new here. Normally political analysts will categorize this organization as part of "depoliticization" or a strategy that produces anarchy, or stagnation. But it seems as though the experience of MTD de Solano indicates the opposite; that this way of thinking constitutes a space of creativity and multiplication of concrete experiences. What do you think?

A: We have a lot of lack of comprehension by the traditional parties from the Left. We say that we do not have a specific policy. We believe that we have a coherence that we don't have too much interest debating with them, for it is difficult for them see the reality, because now they have ideas in their heads and many manuals and they cannot understand. But a lot of it we do not preoccupy ourselves about because they are all prejudgments or a need to label us as anarchists, situationalists, or trouble-makers. So they are always trying to find a label to define us. But we are not predictable. We think that we are different to the government and political parties because we are not predictable. In contrast, they are predictable, so we know more or less what they will do. They have everything defined; all armed. So they cannot contain or trap us, this has been a policy for a very long time by the government, to put rules onto organizations so that there is not any conflict.

DK: You say that commitment comes from those that generate a conscience of struggle and if you don't struggle then you don't have anything. But how do you calculate this consciousness? Better said, how do you identify the commitment of your companions? Wouldn't you call this militancy?

A: At least from the beginning of the movement we have been very clear what we did not want to be. We did not want a paternalistic organization, because this is also capitalism. For us this transformation has to do with the commitment to participation, which also has to do with a type of dignity. No one is going to give you a free ride; you are the one that is going to obtain things fighting alongside your companions. Because many people come to the meetings to find work, or come thinking that they are going to find food, and we say that we are not distributing anything. Here we fight, there is a point of struggle, and this struggle will be the recuperation of dignity that over time has been taken from us. Because when someone is hungry, we see that there is a loss of dignity. We believe that in these years we can create an alternative that has to do with this, the recuperation of dignity. And pride as well is not something that is given, not even by the government. For us the struggle means breaking down our identity as humans with values. As well, it has to do with the common good of our companions.

DK: How do you see the future?

A: Sincerely, in the long term we do not have anything fixed. I think the most difficult battle that we have, along with the police, and difficult repression, is the struggle to renounce all power, that many sectors are questioning us about. They say that this is not coherent, etc., but we are very firm in the struggle for dignity, even though we do not have a specific place from beginning to end. What we do want is liberty, dignity, and the end of exploitation of man for man.

Maturing does not mean finding the recipe that is in the manuals, and sometimes acts in a dangerous manner, because it makes your way of thinking and way of acting very rigid. This is something that we continue to break. Here (Argentina) there is a lot of uncertainty that our own companions ask: "Where are we going?" But here we are making an effort not to get lost. Sincerely, this is something that we are creating, and we believe that the big novelty and the air of liberty that we breathe have allowed the movement to grow in a free spirited environment. We say that we are telling another story, that our experience is not one with a recipe attached, because each movement, each group, has to make its own experience, because in this there is the capacity as human beings to create, and for this reason sometimes we have to repeat schemes, or in that there might be forms or a searching that we can all share. As such, we are working with the assemblies and the farmers, so that we have a lot of conversations and encounters. But never have we had the pretence of telling them what they have to do, that we have to be the vanguards. This is something that many of the sectors of the piqueteros have believed in. It is also important not to get caught in your own rules and game that will bring you to hegemonize the struggle, to first control and then punish those that leave your control. And this is difficult.

Alberto is a member of the MTD Solano. Dina Khorasanee, an activist from Toronto, is currently living in Argentina and working in solidarity with the MTD Solano.