From the South, Resistance Rises: Report from ELAOPA XV

In late January 2025, the Black Rose/Rosa Negra International Relations Committee (BRRN – IRC) accepted an invitation to send a member of our organization to the 15th Encuentro Latinoamericano de Organizaciones Populares y Autónomas (ELAOPA) or “Latin American Gathering of Popular and Autonomous Organizations” in Santiago, Chile. Ketino, a militant of BRRN, primarily joined the gathering in their capacity as a participant in a US based abolitionist social movement organization. Below they report on their experiences at ELAOPA XV.

by Ketino B.

Introduction

Encuentro Latinoamericano de Organizaciones Populares y Autónomas (ELAOPA) emerged out of and as an alternative to the World Social Forum, an annual gathering of global social movement organizations that posed itself as a popular counter to the Davos World Economic Forum and the organized forces of global capital. Over time, some participants in the World Social Forum became dissatisfied with the incorporation of political parties, NGO’s, and even some private firms into the proceedings. It’s from this context that ELAOPA was born, maintaining an insistence on an orientation to class struggle and the independence of social movements from the state.

For a US audience, it is important to situate the phrase “encuentro”, noting that it signifies something a bit more than a simple “gathering.” An encuentro in the context of Latin American social movements is typically marked by a commitment to collaboration, horizontality, pluralism, and democracy. 

ELAOPA has taken place regularly since 2003, circulating between different Latin American countries with each iteration. In 2020 it became a bi-annual gathering. Throughout its history it has successfully incorporated a variety of organizations focused on social-environmental, student, indigenous, queer, feminist, worker, and territory based struggles. ELAOPA seeks to bring together these organizations on the basis of their shared commitment to the following principles:

1. To build Popular Power
2. An anti-patriarchal and anti-colonial perspective
3. Popular protagonism and direct action
4. Class solidarity, mutual aid, and internationalism

This year more than 400 people participated in the event, together representing more than 100 social movements from Latin American countries such as Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, and Paraguay, as well as representatives from other countries such as the United States and Germany.

Methodology of ELAOPA XV

In addition to the general principles enumerated above, each iteration of ELAOPA is focused on a particular framework. For 2025, the organizers of the event offered this prompt:

“In this version of ELAOPA, we want to contribute to accumulating the forces of our class, we call upon ourselves to scrutinize the forces of domination to clearly identify the elements that will allow us to build repertoires of counter-hegemonic struggle, with emphasis on the patriarchal and colonizing forces, in order to integrate them with class domination.”

The encuentro is a space of encounter and mutual recognition as much as it is a space for workshopping different issues. With an eye toward the latter, ELAOPA organizers defined a clear methodological path for discussions to follow. This included establishing the general goal of “problematizing and deepening common horizons of struggle: updating them for today’s challenges in the Abya Yala region”, as well as more specific sub-goals including, “1. To position patriarchy as a relevant and influential axis of domination at all levels of our struggle; 2. Developing and/or strengthening experiences of popular power and; 3. Possibilities for tactical agreements and joint projects to transversalize struggles.”

To address these questions, participants were divided into “mesas temáticas” (thematic tables), or breakout groups, based on the sector of organizing that they are involved in. Breakout groups included Territorial and Neighborhood; Public Workers; Private Workers; Memory, Culture and Agitation-Propaganda; Socio-environmental, and Education.

In addition to the general and specific questions that framed this approach, each breakout group was tasked with answering the following questions:

1. Taking into account diverse approaches, experiences, and/or problems made visible by your organization while understanding that patriarchy is an axis of domination through which capitalism operates at multiple levels of life: How does patriarchy unfold and how does it produce, effect, or impact acts of resistance within our organizing work? Consider internal organizational dynamics and relationships between organizations and the communities we work with.
   
2. Considering the general context of Latin America, in addition to our local struggles, and understanding Popular Power as the construction of our autonomous organized force: How have we managed to implement and strengthen the experience and practice of Popular Power? Consider actions and difficulties.
   
3. Considering the tensions and difficulties in the collective construction of a political project by and for our class. How do we unite our struggles on common ground to coordinate and project them in the short, medium, and long term?

Setting

As determined at the closing of ELAOPA XIV, the 2025 gathering took place in Santiago de Chile, in the población (neighborhood) of La Bandera. This neighborhood is itself the product of popular struggles in the region. Established in 1969, La Bandera is the product of movimientos de pobladores (population movements) which directly seized land in an effort to meet immediate material needs and to force the state to intervene by providing adequate housing for all. Initially named toma 26 de enero (occupation of January 26), the occupation was organized and defended by the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR). During the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, residents of La Bandera faced heavy repression. 

Today the neighborhood retains a strong political identity and historical memory of its origin. For example, a few participants and I stayed for the evening in a building where many local Chilean participants in ELAOPA were also living. This building is a very recent victory, produced by eight years of popular struggle to grant eighty families affordable housing through cheap property titling. This is a small expression of what we recognize as Popular Power: tenants gained access to the building through popular struggle and now self-manage their affairs through assemblies and delegates to address all instances of life in the building.

Importantly, ELAOPA itself took place in a public school campus central to the neighborhood. The fact that the organizers were granted use of a public school, at no charge, speaks not only to the flexible and, to some extent, decentralized nature of the public education apparatus in Chile, but also to the nature of the school being situated in the historical and political context of La Bandera.

Day 1

ELAOPA took place through the weekend of January 25-26. As already stated, the event was a mix of discussion and debate via breakout groups, cultural expressions, public statements, informational booths, and a final plenary.

On the first day, Saturday, January 25th, an opening ceremony took place, tables were displayed, a wall was erected displaying posters describing the work of organizations represented at the event, and the breakout groups met to begin working through the first two planned questions.

I was advised to integrate into the Memory, Culture, and Agitation-Propaganda group. The discussion methodology was clearly stated and we held a three-hour work session. The first two hours were used to engage the questions in a subgroup and the last hour was for having a more extensive discussion with all people participating in the breakout group.

Subgroups within the Memory, Culture, and Agitation-Propaganda group were formed to take up the questions mentioned in the methodology section of this report. We began with question 1, which aimed to address the role of patriarchy in our organizing work. In discussions, we were directed to first identify common points of agreement. Following this, we engaged in a second round of discussion to hear critiques of the previous dialogue. Because I was an active participant in these discussions and not simply there to record, the following points are recounted from a mix of memory and the notes I kept.

Subgroup Common Perspectives on Question 1: 

• Sexism—particularly “machismo”—impacts not only everyday life but also various organizing processes. 
• Gender plays a role in shaping membership roles.
• Gender, race, and class constitute an interconnected matrix
• There is a need to reflect on both the qualitative and quantitative vectors of this matrix
• A feminist approach is crucial, one that also aims to dismantle binary gender roles.
• Horizontal political models should be further developed within social/mass organizations.

Subgroup Points of Critical Reflection on Question 1:

• Horizontal and democratic models alone may not fully guarantee the dismantling of patriarchy and oppressive gender roles.
• While education is crucial, it is also essential to recognize that patriarchy can only be dismantled through the eradication of the systems and structures that produce oppression, exploitation, and domination—such as capitalism.

Following our discussion on question 1, we continued with the same model to discuss question 2. This second question, as you will recall from the methodology section of this report, related to the successes and difficulties in establishing Popular Power. Below are the common points of agreement we found through discussion on this question. Unfortunately, because time ran short, my subgroup did not have the opportunity to identify and address criticisms.

Subgroup Common Perspectives on Question 2:

• It is essential to build and articulate struggles from and within el territorio.¹
• Democratic values must be upheld while considering context-specific sensitivities.
• Collaboration with organizaciones comunitarias (“community”/mass organizations) is key.
• Popular Power should be built through two central axes: program and mass organizing.
• Clear alternatives to hegemonic structures must be proposed.
• Participatory planning should be emphasized.
• Decision-making processes should be decentralized.
• Identity empowerment through self-management and education is essential.
• Flexibility in frameworks is necessary—finding the right model for each specific context.
• Awareness of potential contradictions between Popular Power and various ideological perspectives is crucial.
• The principles of Popular Power can generate tensions and contradictions in different contexts.
• Co-optation of communities and poblaciones (neighborhoods) by other political models—such as parties or non-profits—must be critically examined.
• Control over the production and distribution of information is necessary.
• Efforts should be made to unite all groups engaged in the struggle.
• Attention should be given to historical and generational differences in interpretations of Popular Power.
• Culture can serve as a space for struggle, resistance, and self-management.

The rest of day 1 was designated for a Mapuche cultural ceremonywhich I was unable to attend because I was on kitchen duty. The day closed with a performance by a street band and the issuing of public statements to those gathered.

Day 2

The second and final day of the encuentro opened with a mass meeting, after which we quickly went to breakout groups in order to address the last question in the program. At one point the old groups were scrambled, with members from the various sectors intermingling. This was called the “intermesas” (the cross tables), this discussion was more open-ended, meaning the structured “agreement-disagreement” format was not followed. Instead, participants shared their opinions more freely. The following are key points of discussion that emerged in my group during this portion.

Key Points of Discussion on Question 3:

• The need to pay attention to the class character and content of specific feminist movements, as highlighted by members of the Sindicato Aceiteros de Rosario (Rosario Oil Workers Union).
• The role of class in building unity and alliances.
• Developing procedures for organizing rank-and-file assemblies.
• The influence of nationalism on different patterns of class struggle.
• Distinct challenges faced by housing based organizing.
• Understanding el territorio as a space where different groups intersect.

After about 90 minutes, the discussion came to a close and we all came together for the final plenary. 

During the plenary, some highlights of the work performed were addressed and some resolutions were proposed. There was an emphasis on reaching a more durable understanding of the common direction of the social movement struggles at a continental level. Some statements in support of missing and detained comrades were made, and a very touching video from North and East Syria (Rojava) was played. After a group picture was taken the event was declared adjourned.

Concluding Reflections

I think events like ELAOPA are precious and present massive opportunities for personal and collective political growth. But ELAOPA was also a very particular experience for two main reasons: context and attendance. I had the chance to meet many people—there were some 400 attendees—involved in different areas of the social and popular struggle and I also had the priceless opportunity to do so while being in a historic and ongoing site of territorial struggle.

Indeed, it was this territorial aspect that struck me the most, with regard to the way it shaped every aspect of the event. It helped me to think more concretely about this sector, especially as we in Black Rose/Rosa Negra continue to discuss, debate, and experiment with its application to the terrain of popular struggle in the United States.

Finally, it feels important to relay the concern expressed by participants in ELAOPA about the revival of expressly predatory policies towards Latin America in the context of the current U.S. administration. It is no secret that Trump favors returning the U.S. to a posture of naked aggression similar to that which marked 19th century U.S. international policies like the Monroe Doctrine. I believe it is crucial for us to further grow the already multiple and solid ties we have with our sibling organizations in South America.

---

1. While territorio literally translates to “territory” in English, a more context-specific understanding of this term is necessary for the United States. ↩︎