he Zapatista movement is continually evolving, reflecting the dynamic interaction between neoliberalism and the social movements that contest it. As the state brokers the reconfiguration of markets in accordance with the logic of global capital, new organizational bases and forms of organizing are emerging within civil society, attempting to build alternatives from the grassroots. This
necessarily involves these movements in political struggles as they claim rights to organize autonomously from control by the state or market actors. The Zapatista example suggests that “autonomy” is not a monolithic concept or a magic bullet against neoliberalism. States implementing neoliberal projects have a variety of ways of responding to autonomy movements, trying to neutralize or divert them. Several potential dead ends for autonomy movements are identified here. One is a version of autonomy defined merely as territorial
decentralization, which could convert the regional authorities into appendages of the existing power structure. A second is autonomy that cuts off local
claimants from resources, “freeing” them to fend for themselves as the central state paves the way for the penetration of the global market. A third is the neoliberal multiculturalism trap, recognizing multiple (ethnic) i