Ezln

[Die Rote Fahne]

So, as a supporter, I'd like to know what the OI section thinks of them.

[Imposter Marxist]

I support them...Alot. They were the group that "Radicalized" me, I guess. Whats not too like? I just wish they had more support, so they could take action.

[Nolan]

I'm shocked the Mexican government hasn't destroyed them.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm doing a presentation on them for a social movements class. After watching videos for research, I found myself on the brink of tears. Although they're no longer revolutionary by any means, they're so goddamned inspiring. Sigh....

[Bud Struggle]

I'm shocked the Mexican government hasn't destroyed them.

I am to.

On a purely practical level the do present a real political threat to the Mexican government but they are in a vastly poor region and they are not looking to separate themselves from Mexico and form a new country. And of course on the other hand the Mexican government has a much larger threat in the drug lords the seem to have taken over large segments of the country also.

Maybe it's just an allocation of resources issue--or maybe the government is worried that the Revolution may spread if attacked directly. Whatever the answer, the EZLN is doing an amazing job.

I buy their coffee--not bad, a little acidic, but great in the morning.

[RGacky3]

I'm shocked the Mexican government hasn't destroyed them.


THey've tried too, for years, heres how the EZNL survived (its no secret), Huge domestic public support, they had a great PR campain to let their cause be known, the rulling class media did'nt have a monopoly of information about them, also, lots of international support from various leftist groups.


And of course on the other hand the Mexican government has a much larger threat in the drug lords the seem to have taken over large segments of the country also.

Maybe it's just an allocation of resources issue--or maybe the government is worried that the Revolution may spread if attacked directly. Whatever the answer, the EZLN is doing an amazing job.

I think its a combination, the drug lors are a much larger threat as far as law and order is involved, but as long as the Zapatistas stay in their area I think the Mexican governemnt realizes its much better to leave them alone, as soon as they attack, the Zapatistas will get tons of attention and support, whereas if they start spreading again and getting popular I guarantee the Mexican government will come back.

The EZLN is an awesome example of how the people won against the working class, its david vrs goliath x 100, unfortunately, any anarchistic revolution is david vrs goliathe x 100.

[ComradeOm]

On a purely practical level the do present a real political threat to the Mexican government but they are in a vastly poor region and they are not looking to separate themselves from Mexico and form a new countryOn a purely practical (ie, military) level EZLN is a spent force. It had its back broken by the Army over a decade ago when it lost the war and, AFAIK, has never recovered. Today EZLN exists only on the whims of Mexico City. Whatever the reasons for the latter's leniency, I would be wary of eulogising their achievements too much


Whats not too like?How about renouncing armed resistance, not that they had much choice mind, in favour of "political struggle through this peaceful initiative"?

[Nolan]

What about Marcos? I've seen people compare him to Guevara, but he hasn't really done anything yet. Isn't he some kind of libertarian Marxist?

[Invincible Summer]

What about Marcos? I've seen people compare him to Guevara, but he hasn't really done anything yet. Isn't he some kind of libertarian Marxist?

I believe he used to be part of the FLN which was a Guevara-inspired guerilla group. But yeah I'm pretty sure he's a libertarian Marxist at the very least.

And what do you mean by "do anything?" He calls himself "Subcomandante" because he says the people should lead. He's just the PR guy really. All the communiques are written by him, and all the media stuff is done by him because he can speak English and Spanish, unlike most of the Zapatistas. He distributes his communiques to anyone that wants them, which has led to people posting them online and building the huge EZLN support base that we see now. I'd say he has done a lot.

[Bud Struggle]

On a purely practical (ie, military) level EZLN is a spent force. It had its back broken by the Army over a decade ago when it lost the war and, AFAIK, has never recovered. Today EZLN exists only on the whims of Mexico City. Whatever the reasons for the latter's leniency, I would be wary of eulogising their achievements too much


I totally disagree. They exist by their right as a free people. (I know it's un-RevLeftist) but Revolution will NEVER happen by bare knuckled working guys fighting army tanks. The EZLN is the Revolution of the future--they convince reasonably educated and thoughtful people that they have a better plan for living then the Capitalists do. If you think Revolution will happen any other way--you are fooling yourself.

Besides armed Revolution is sooooooooooo 19th Century. :)

[#FF0000]

I totally disagree. They exist by their right as a free people. (I know it's un-RevLeftist) but Revolution will NEVER happen by bare knuckled working guys fighting army tanks. The EZLN is the Revolution of the future--they convince reasonably educated and thoughtful people that they have a better plan for living then the Capitalists do. If you think Revolution will happen any other way--you are fooling yourself.

Besides armed Revolution is sooooooooooo 19th Century. :)

tbh I don't think Marx and them saw revolutions all involving out and out conventional warfare against the state anyway. Kind of a new phenomenon.

[Bud Struggle]

tbh I don't think Marx and them saw revolutions all involving out and out conventional warfare against the state anyway. Kind of a new phenomenon.



I don't know what exactly Marx envisioned--but Revolution, REAL Revolution is what actually WORKS to bring about a fair and just and equitable world--to think violence is necessary in this process is just archaic and foolish.

[Os Cangaceiros]

(I know it's un-RevLeftist) but Revolution will NEVER happen by bare knuckled working guys fighting army tanks.

You sir are truly master of the straw man.

[Bud Struggle]

You sir are truly master of the straw man.

Then that that must be Comrade Om--he's they guy that thinks the EZLN is spent. :)

[cb9's_unity]

I've tried to research on them but I haven't really found much.

My question is why hasn't the international left gotten more behind the EZLN and the communes? People like to talk more about the revolutions of the past and of the 'red' capitalist states of today than they want to talk about a movement that actually consists of bottom-up, anti-capitalist, and autonomous revolutionary communities.

Why isn't this treated like a modern day Paris commune?

[#FF0000]

I don't know what exactly Marx envisioned--but Revolution, REAL Revolution is what actually WORKS to bring about a fair and just and equitable world--to think violence is necessary in this process is just archaic and foolish.

Right. I think everyone would actually agree with this. I always saw straight up violence as very likely, but not 100% necessary for a revolution.

I think it is -very- likely, though. The EZLN had to do a fair bit of fighting in their time.

[Invincible Summer]

I've tried to research on them but I haven't really found much.

My question is why hasn't the international left gotten more behind the EZLN and the communes? People like to talk more about the revolutions of the past and of the 'red' capitalist states of today than they want to talk about a movement that actually consists of bottom-up, anti-capitalist, and autonomous revolutionary communities.

Why isn't this treated like a modern day Paris commune?

As for sources on the EZLN, there are actually a bunch. Here's a really good documentary: A Place Called Chiapas (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4513202692382805096#). Gotta thank the National Film Board of Canada for that.

Libcom also had a couple of good articles on them:
http://libcom.org/library/zapatista-effect-cleaver
http://libcom.org/library/commune-chiapas-zapatista-mexico

and this article is pretty good: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=582

And here is a list of EZLN communiques: http://www.struggle.ws/mexico/ezlnco.html

It is quite a wonder why the int'l left hasn't supported the EZLN more. Perhaps they're not "radical" enough, since they haven't called for the overthrow of the state or anything like that (well, not since their First Declaration). Also, they're more focused on just getting the indigenous peasants their rights and land, which some may say is "petit-bourgeois."

But if we support Palestinian resistance, Black Power, etc, why not Zapatistas?

[Os Cangaceiros]

There's also a pretty good book about them called Homage to Chiapas. It also talks about some of the other grassroots movements in S. Mexico, including the more militant EPR (Popular Revolutionary Army). I remember something about that organization gunning down a prominent Oaxacan police chief/official a couple years back after the unrest there.

[RGacky3]

I totally disagree. They exist by their right as a free people. (I know it's un-RevLeftist) but Revolution will NEVER happen by bare knuckled working guys fighting army tanks. The EZLN is the Revolution of the future--they convince reasonably educated and thoughtful people that they have a better plan for living then the Capitalists do. If you think Revolution will happen any other way--you are fooling yourself.

Besides armed Revolution is sooooooooooo 19th Century.

I absolutely agree with you 100%, the militias and armed vanguard groups are for the right wing and for places and times where wide spread communication and relatively free speach was impossible. The EZLN beat the Mexican government not because they had better guns, or more soldiers, its because they yelled louder and with more moral conviction, they did not let the Mexican ruling class twist the story or demonize them they did this to the point to where it was better for the ruling class to NOT fight them out of fear of a public backlash.

In my opinion, this is how revolutions happen, the most successfull strikes or occupations (which I consider mini revolutions) are the ones where they get peoples attention and they appeal to the general sense of morality that people have, and get public support.


I don't know what exactly Marx envisioned--but Revolution, REAL Revolution is what actually WORKS to bring about a fair and just and equitable world--to think violence is necessary in this process is just archaic and foolish.

First of, I could care less what Marx envisioned. But again I agree with you, the lesson the left should learn from the EZLN is that words work, also that idiotic idea that the poor and uneducated cannot organize themselves and run their own lives is rediculous, the Zapatistas, although being humble and simple people, run their own affairs just fine.

As far as violence, I am no pacifist, but I believe that violence is almost always counter productive, unless in clear self-defense, theres a reason why in large strikes and protests that threaten the ruling class the cops will almost always try and incite violence, it gives them something to use to demonize the left.

[Invincible Summer]

"It is not our arms which make us radical; it is the new political practice which we propose and in which we are immersed with thousands of men and women in Mexico and the world: the construction of a political practice which does not seek the taking of power but the organization of society. Intellectuals and political leadership, of all sizes, of the ultraright, of the right, the center, of the left and the ultraleft, national and international criticize our proposal. We are so radical that we do not fit in the parameters of "modern political science". We are not bragging … we are pointing out the facts. Is there anything more radical than to propose to change the world? You know this because you share this dream with us, and because, though the truth be repeated, we dream it together."

From: http://www.struggle.ws/mexico/ezln/marc_to_cs_se96.html

[Bud Struggle]

It is quite a wonder why the int'l left hasn't supported the EZLN more. Perhaps they're not "radical" enough, since they haven't called for the overthrow of the state or anything like that (well, not since their First Declaration). Also, they're more focused on just getting the indigenous peasants their rights and land, which some may say is "petit-bourgeois."

But if we support Palestinian resistance, Black Power, etc, why not Zapatistas?

That's a dead on post. It's interesting to see how the radical left supports causes that are "fashionable" with flages and government takovers and protests but when it comes the REAL BUILDING of a free, democratic world that isn't bound by Trotskyist or Stalinist or Marxist or any other pre ordained ideology--the Left isn't interested.

Men and wormen working all day planting and harvesting coffee beans in free and endless fields has more to do with Communism than a thousand Internationals or Commenturns.

[Tablo]

I think the Libertarian Left has been relatively supportive of the EZLN, but we aren't quite as large or well represented as the Leninists who focus more so on their ideologically based movements like in Nepal and India.

[Nolan]

The EZLN is great and I support them, but I don't see them getting anything significant done in the near future. They're weak and they've allowed the government to quarantine their ideas and their territory. I simply can't see their methods as practical. The Maoists on the other hand..

[Tablo]

The EZLN is great and I support them, but I don't see them getting anything significant done in the near future. They're weak and they've allowed the government to quarantine their ideas and their territory. I simply can't see their methods as practical. The Maoists on the other hand..
The goal of the EZLN isn't world wide revolution. It is simply making sure the indigenous have control of their own land. They do have some potential and enough sympathies they might be able to do more, but the Mexican government has a fully equipped military and if real revolution broke out in Mexico then the United States is close by to crush it.

[#FF0000]

The EZLN is great and I support them, but I don't see them getting anything significant done in the near future. They're weak and they've allowed the government to quarantine their ideas and their territory. I simply can't see their methods as practical. The Maoists on the other hand..

You just like the maoists more because you think guerilla shit is cool. Admit it.

[Invincible Summer]

The EZLN is great and I support them, but I don't see them getting anything significant done in the near future. They're weak and they've allowed the government to quarantine their ideas and their territory. I simply can't see their methods as practical. The Maoists on the other hand..

The EZLN has been around since 1983. They've obviously been very good about security and whatnot to maintain their longevity. While they may not get anything radical done anytime soon, I anticipate that the international support they have, as well as their cleverness in strategy, will allow us to observe them for a long time to come.

But yes, like Tsukae rightly pointed out, the EZLN is not about international revolution. They call themselves the "Zapatistas" and a "national liberation army" for a reason. Emiliano Zapata was a leading figure in the Mexican Revolution of 1910, and organized indigenous peoples and landless peasants against the state in order to gain rights and equal status for these people.

The EZLN is true to their namesake. When they drafted up the San Andres Accords, these were the points:

· basic respect for the diversity of the indigenous population of Chiapas;
· the conservation of the the natural resources within the territories used and occupied by indigenous peoples;
· a greater participation of indigenous communities in the decisions and control of public expenditures;

· the participation of indigenous communities in determining their own development plans, as well as having control over their own administrative and judicial affairs;
-· the autonomy of indigenous communities and their right of free determination in the framework of the State


In their letter "What makes us different is our political proposal," (http://www.struggle.ws/mexico/ezln/marc_to_cs_se96.html) Marcos outlines the following:


We do not want others, more or less of the right, center or left, to decide for us. We want to participate directly in the decisions which concern us, to control those who govern us, without regard to their political affiliation, and oblige them to "rule by obeying". We do not struggle to take power, we struggle for democracy, liberty, and justice. Our political proposal is the most radical in Mexico (perhaps in the world, but it is still too soon to say). It is so radical that all the traditional political spectrum (right, center left and those of one or the other extreme) criticize us and walk away from our delirium.


It is not our arms which make us radical; it is the new political practice which we propose and in which we are immersed with thousands of men and women in Mexico and the world: the construction of a political practice which does not seek the taking of power but the organization of society. Intellectuals and political leadership, of all sizes, of the ultraright, of the right, the center, of the left and the ultraleft, national and international criticize our proposal. We are so radical that we do not fit in the parameters of "modern political science". We are not bragging madam: we are pointing out the facts. Is there anything more radical than to propose to change the world? You know this because you share this dream with us, and because, though the truth be repeated, we dream it together.Again, this is probably what makes them unpopular with the dogmatic left. They don't really care about building an international (at this point), or how they're seen by "true communists" or anyone else. They just want to see their idea of democracy carried out.

And seeing as how the EZLN is a bunch of federated villages of poor indigenous people who only really have guns that they stole from military bases, I don't see how they could fight off the Mexican state army from establishing themselves in Chiapas.

[RGacky3]

That's a dead on post. It's interesting to see how the radical left supports causes that are "fashionable" with flages and government takovers and protests but when it comes the REAL BUILDING of a free, democratic world that isn't bound by Trotskyist or Stalinist or Marxist or any other pre ordained ideology--the Left isn't interested.

Men and wormen working all day planting and harvesting coffee beans in free and endless fields has more to do with Communism than a thousand Internationals or Commenturns.

I completely agree, but please, don't take the Maoists or Trotskyists seriously.

Also why is it bad that they arn't fighting for an international revolution? They are trying to make things better for themselves, and thats what communism is about.

[Nolan]

You just like the maoists more because you think guerilla shit is cool. Admit it.

No I like them because they're getting shit done on multiple fronts. I have no allegiance to Maoism.

[Nolan]

The goal of the EZLN isn't world wide revolution.

That's the problem.


It is simply making sure the indigenous have control of their own land. They do have some potential and enough sympathies they might be able to do more, but the Mexican government has a fully equipped military and if real revolution broke out in Mexico then the United States is close by to crush it.All too true sadly. Still, they can agitate and they're not doing that enough. They're simply too passive in my opinion. They should be working more to provide an alternative to the drug cartels that often command the loyalty of working communities in Mexico, often by terror.

[#FF0000]

Also why is it bad that they arn't fighting for an international revolution? They are trying to make things better for themselves, and thats what communism is about.

No, it isn't. It's about liberation of the working class, across the world.

I think this is where people take issue and the more I think about it, the more I understand the perspective.

If the EZLN isn't set to take over Mexico because they don't believe that at this point in time, they're capable of it, then that's one thing.

But if it's a matter of principle, then I have to take issue with it, because then they're really no better than any hippie who runs off and joins a commune. They're just armed and better at the commune thing.

Fortunately, I think the case is the former, so.

[Ligeia]

They should be working more to provide an alternative to the drug cartels that often command the loyalty of working communities in Mexico, often by terror.
They can't provide to do that if they can't do more than saving themselves from the government. And the drug cartels don't seem to be less organized and less equipped than the government is. Besides, the government is often linked to drug cartels,..and let's not forget that there are some paramilitary groups,as well. (Also ... the U.S. government would be quick to offer some "help".)

Then again they actually do some "promotional" work all over Mexico.
(Not in the form of taking arms though, I think I've read they promised never to take arms for an offensive purpose since 1994....).

[ComradeOm]

I totally disagree. They exist by their right as a free people. (I know it's un-RevLeftist) but Revolution will NEVER happen by bare knuckled working guys fighting army tanks. The EZLN is the Revolution of the future--they convince reasonably educated and thoughtful people that they have a better plan for living then the Capitalists do. If you think Revolution will happen any other way--you are fooling yourself.

Besides armed Revolution is sooooooooooo 19th Century. :)*Shrugs* That's why you're confined to OI. Its also an illustration as to why the champagne socialists of 'the left' so adore EZLN


The EZLN has been around since 1983. They've obviously been very good about security and whatnot to maintain their longevityEh... no. EZLN were crushed by the Mexican Army in the early 1990s. They have not presented any serious armed resistance to the state since then


And seeing as how the EZLN is a bunch of federated villages of poor indigenous people who only really have guns that they stole from military bases, I don't see how they could fight off the Mexican state army from establishing themselves in Chiapas.You don't see the problem with that? The Chiapas villages exist at the suffrage of the Mexican state. If the latter wanted to crush them then it could do so within a matter of weeks. Call me a dogmatist if you will but that is not what I call revolutionary

Now I can't fault the EZLN for losing their war and I can't fault them for tending to their own affairs. I do however criticise those on the revolutionary left who continue to hold EZLN up as an example of a revolutionary movement or seek to emulate their, essentially reformist, programme

[Bud Struggle]

*Shrugs* That's why you're confined to OI. Its also an illustration as to why the champagne socialists of 'the left' so adore EZLN

No.

I'm confined to OI for owning a factory. You flash in the pan Communists that want to fight everyone and piss all over peoples beliefs and way of living are the exact reason Communism has been such a failure. The EZLN aren't fighters. They are lovers--they love the land, they love the people. They change hearts, they lead from brother/sisterhood not violence.



Eh... no. EZLN were crushed by the Mexican Army in the early 1990s. They have not presented any serious armed resistance to the state since then Good for them. Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross and you hear about him every day.


You don't see the problem with that? The Chiapas villages exist at the suffrage of the Mexican state. If the latter wanted to crush them then it could do so within a matter of weeks. Call me a dogmatist if you will but that is not what I call revolutionary Dogmatist--to what? We are talking COMMUNISM not Action Heroism. Real life isn't WoW.


Now I can't fault the EZLN for losing their war and I can't fault them for tending to their own affairs. I do however criticise those on the revolutionary left who continue to hold EZLN up as an example of a revolutionary movement or seek to emulate their, essentially reformist, programme You miss the point of being a Communist--what more can I say? It's not about the freakin' Revolution--it's about the life that comes with being a free man or woman.

It's pretty pathetic when a OIer has to each you RevLefters what Communism is all about. ;) :D

[ComradeOm]

No

I'm confined to OI for owning a factoryA capitalist who sprouts liberal nonsense? One who rejects the need for a workers' revolution? I am shocked and appalled that you have been unjustly restricted. Be assured that a petition is on its way to administrators as you are reading this

To be serious for a moment, I honestly don't care what you think you know about communism and have zero interest in arguing over the nature of revolution with a cappie. Frankly there are better ways of pissing my time away. Besides I wouldn't want to keep you from your sixties hippy commune

[#FF0000]

Now I can't fault the EZLN for losing their war and I can't fault them for tending to their own affairs. I do however criticise those on the revolutionary left who continue to hold EZLN up as an example of a revolutionary movement or seek to emulate their, essentially reformist, programme

So, you don't think the EZLN would participate in armed struggle, if they felt they had a chance at not being annihilated?

[Bud Struggle]

Besides I wouldn't want to keep you from your sixties hippy commune


Or I you from your Ilsa Tigress of Siberia dreamworld. :)

Cheers.

[Invincible Summer]

Eh... no. EZLN were crushed by the Mexican Army in the early 1990s. They have not presented any serious armed resistance to the state since then

The EZLN as a paramilitary force was "defeated" in 1994, yes. I say "defeated" because they suffered casualties, but it's not like they were utterly destroyed and had to re-build themselves. They're not like FARC or Sendero Luminoso where they're forced to hide in caves and shit because they are pretty much decimated and all their head honchos are killed.

And AFAIK in 2001 the Mexican state launched a military offensive against them. Since the mid-late 90's the Mexican state has waged low-intensity warfare. The Zapatistas are still around. That's my point. I'm not arguing how militant they are or how successful at attacking the Mexican state they are.

If longevity is purely about guerrilla warfare, then Maoists are the only existing Communists then? The left in the West has not participated in armed struggle for a long time either.


You don't see the problem with that? The Chiapas villages exist at the suffrage of the Mexican state. If the latter wanted to crush them then it could do so within a matter of weeks. Call me a dogmatist if you will but that is not what I call revolutionary

Of course having the Mexican army up your ass is a problem. But my point is that there's not much they can do about it, since they're not exactly well-funded or well-armed. Captain Cuba made the point that the EZLN "allowed" the Mexican state to co-exist with them in Chiapas. I'm arguing that they didn't have much choice.

But it's not like the EZLN loves their presence. They've staged some occupations of military bases and whatnot.

No, it's not revolutionary, but I think that it'd be foolhardy to try and attack the Mexican army when you're in the state the EZLN is in.


Now I can't fault the EZLN for losing their war and I can't fault them for tending to their own affairs. I do however criticise those on the revolutionary left who continue to hold EZLN up as an example of a revolutionary movement or seek to emulate their, essentially reformist, programme

Well, the EZLN (specifically, Marcos) has said that the Zapatistas want to be an example to the world, especially for oppressed peoples (I'm sure they mean indigenous peoples), that they can try to take their lives into their own hands. It's not an explicit call to revolution, but it has undertones.

I suspect it may be a PR thing. I think Marcos is smart enough to know that if - at this point - the EZLN called for a revolution and stated they want a revolutionary war, they'd be long gone.

[RGacky3]

No, it isn't. It's about liberation of the working class, across the world.

I think this is where people take issue and the more I think about it, the more I understand the perspective.

If the EZLN isn't set to take over Mexico because they don't believe that at this point in time, they're capable of it, then that's one thing.

But if it's a matter of principle, then I have to take issue with it, because then they're really no better than any hippie who runs off and joins a commune. They're just armed and better at the commune thing.

Fortunately, I think the case is the former, so.

Of coarse ultimately its about liberation of the working class across the world, in that case so is any social liberation movement, but it starts with communities and individuals, and the whole point is to benefit communities and individuals.

How can you expect these people, who just barely managed to have their own revolution and be able to run their own lives to give that all up to try and spread it around and maybe loose what they have gained. Your a Leninist so I assume your into the material interests thing, the Zapatistas have had their revolution and its in their material interests to keep it, and who are you to say its not valid just because its not international enough, I say great for them, and I hope other people follow in their footsteps.

The difference between then and hippie communes, is they actually took the land from the ranchers, it was a revolution.

As far as Mexico, why does it have to be national to count? Who makes bounderies, they indentify themselves as indigenous peoples, not Mexicans, why should they have to think nationally? Your essencially imposing western nationalist thought on peple who have no interest in that, and why should they?


*Shrugs* That's why you're confined to OI. Its also an illustration as to why the champagne socialists of 'the left' so adore EZLN

Champange socialists??? The socialists of the left support the EZLN because they are actually making socialism, not following some dictatorial party or leader.


Eh... no. EZLN were crushed by the Mexican Army in the early 1990s. They have not presented any serious armed resistance to the state since then


Which is why they have their own autonomous area in Chiapas right?

Also, if someone else being able to militarily crush them refutes their autonomy, then I suppose no country in the world is actually autonomous because the US can take them on militarily, maybe with exception of China.


You don't see the problem with that? The Chiapas villages exist at the suffrage of the Mexican state. If the latter wanted to crush them then it could do so within a matter of weeks. Call me a dogmatist if you will but that is not what I call revolutionary

Now I can't fault the EZLN for losing their war and I can't fault them for tending to their own affairs. I do however criticise those on the revolutionary left who continue to hold EZLN up as an example of a revolutionary movement or seek to emulate their, essentially reformist, programme

But they don't, you know why? Because they defend themself with public support. How are the EZLN reformist? They TOOK THE LAND from the ranchers, thats revolution dumbass. Just becuase it does'nt fit your notion of national revolution, does'nt mean its not revolution, but I suppose we should all just think within national borders and state structures, right?

The EZLN did'nt loose the war, they still have their autonomous area, which the Mexican military won't go into.

Really the issue you have is it did'nt follow Leninist dogma, a political party vanguard, strick totalitarian leadership, nationalist style revolution, official state power, and then state control, which is'nt socialism anyway, what the Zapatistas did is actual socialism.


So, you don't think the EZLN would participate in armed struggle, if they felt they had a chance at not being annihilated?

I doubt it, because I think the Zapatistas would rather support independant home grown revolutions, like Atenco, Or Oaxacca, and have a popular uprising, or various popular uprisings, rather than try and make it the Zapatistas vrs Mexico. THATS how you make real revolutions that lead to socialism, not with vanguardist military excebitions, you do it with public uprisings of various sorts.


You miss the point of being a Communist--what more can I say? It's not about the freakin' Revolution--it's about the life that comes with being a free man or woman.

It's pretty pathetic when a OIer has to each you RevLefters what Communism is all about. ;) :D

Its extremely pathetic, that Bud has to school Leninists on the whole damn point of communism, which is to liberate people and give them control over their own affairs.

But then again its not supprising, given that they regect anything that does'nt fit their dogma.

While Their Leninist dreams die out, and it becomes more and more clear that the Leninist model never made anything close to a socialist or a democratic society, the Zapatistas and others make real strides in making ACTUAL socialism and they nit pick everything they can and ignore the whole point.

[Nolan]

I guess actually overthrowing capitalism and not just chillin with your buds in your hippie commune masturbating to indigenous nationalism and having some poser trying to copy Che and look revolutionary is "leninist dogma."

Just face it, the EZLN is no longer revolutionary, and is only useful as far as its experiment in direct democracy in that setting. They've been whipped and they're completely at the mercy of the state. I'll take FARC or Sendero Luminoso any day.

[bricolage]

A few points;
1. The EZLN were not crushed in the 'early 90s', considering they actually began armed uprising in '94, this seems a bit confusing to me.
2. They have attempted to spread beyond their locale, for example the Other Campaign and solidarity with the Oaxcan uprising as well as hosting a few encuentros.
3. Saying the Zapatistas didn't receive enough international support seems quite ridiculous to me, they were the poster boys of alter-globalisation, have had Naomi Klein to David Graeber to John Holloway etc going on about them for years and probably had more transnational solidarity networks than any other group I can remember in recent years.

[#FF0000]

I guess actually overthrowing capitalism and not just chillin with your buds in your hippie commune masturbating to indigenous nationalism and having some poser trying to copy Che and look revolutionary is "leninist dogma."

Just face it, the EZLN is no longer revolutionary, and is only useful as far as its experiment in direct democracy in that setting. They've been whipped and they're completely at the mercy of the state. I'll take FARC or Sendero Luminoso any day.

I'm going to ask you what I asked ComradeOm. Do you not think the EZLN would participate in armed struggle, if they felt they had a chance at not being annihilated?

I also am curious why you don't consider them revolutionary. Is it just because they aren't running a guerilla campaign against the Mexican state?

And I'm really asking, because I haven't been keeping up with the EZLN since ~2003

[which doctor]

Why isn't this treated like a modern day Paris commune?
Well, for starters the Paris Commune took place in the capital of the world at the time, or as Rosa Luxemburg put it, the 'beating and bleeding heart of the European working-class.' The Zapatista's are in some Mexican backwater, in a situation that is in no way translatable to industrial capitalism as we know it today. And to the extent the EZLN seek to preserve the indigenous way of life, I would argue they are a very conservative organization.

The EZLN is some strange, identity politics based localist alter-globalization movement that poses zero threat to toppling industrial capitalism, but first-world leftists like to find some third-world guerilla movement they can fetishize from the comfort of their own home, so that's why you have a lot of people supporting them on a board like this

[ComradeOm]

So, you don't think the EZLN would participate in armed struggle, if they felt they had a chance at not being annihilated?No idea, I can't read minds


I also am curious why you don't consider them revolutionary. Is it just because they aren't running a guerilla campaign against the Mexican state?Not that they have simply renounced armed opposition to the national state, which is fair enough, but that they have done so in favour of entry into Mexican politics. Their objectives can now be pursued through peaceful collaboration with the Mexican bourgeois government


The EZLN as a paramilitary force was "defeated" in 1994, yes. I say "defeated" because they suffered casualties, but it's not like they were utterly destroyed and had to re-build themselvesEZLN's military capabilities were crushed during the nineties. Never mind taking the offensive against the Mexican state, they have been unable to defend against the constant low level intimidation and violence directed at them by the government and its paramilitary forces. The likes of Acteal have been a constant reminder of this


If longevity is purely about guerrilla warfare, then Maoists are the only existing Communists then? The left in the West has not participated in armed struggle for a long time either.What? When did I mention Maoists? And when did I claim that Europe possessed an armed revolutionary movement? :confused:


No, it's not revolutionary, but I think that it'd be foolhardy to try and attack the Mexican army when you're in the state the EZLN is in.And I can fully accept that. I'm not someone who expects EZLN to suddenly take up arms and martyr themselves under the red flag. They lost their war and are now pursuing a different course. That's fair enough and I'm not going to criticise them for surviving

What I do reserve my ire for are those socialists, the ones without the Mexican Army "up their ass", who continue to insist that the Zapatistas are a revolutionary movement and one whose tactics are worth emulating


Champange socialists??? The socialists of the left support the EZLN because they are actually making socialism, not following some dictatorial party or leader.You show me a 'leftist' who believes that "making socialism" involves coexisting with the bourgeois state and I'll show you a reformist or a liberal


Also, if someone else being able to militarily crush them refutes their autonomy, then I suppose no country in the world is actually autonomous because the US can take them on militarily, maybe with exception of ChinaDid I say that the Mexican Army had the potential to crush EZLN in the early nineties or did I say that they did? There was a war and EZLN lost. This is a matter of historical fact that is hardly open to debate

As to why the Mexican government did not follow up their victories in the field with a full reoccupation of the MAREZ, I don't claim to know. I can only speculate that it was simply not worth the effort and hostile international media attention. One thing that is abundantly clear is the that the 1996 accords were not negotiated from a position of Zapatista strength


How are the EZLN reformist?Because they seek to achieve their aims through the path of political struggle through... peaceful initiative (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sixth_Declaration_of_the_Lacandon_Jungle#VI_-_How_We_Are_Going_To_Do_It)


Really the issue you have is it did'nt follow Leninist dogma, a political party vanguard, strick totalitarian leadership, nationalist style revolution, official state power, and then state control, which is'nt socialism anyway, what the Zapatistas did is actual socialism.You got me there. Its all because of the lack of giant Lenin banners and parades through Red Square :rolleyes:


THATS how you make real revolutions that lead to socialism, not with vanguardist military excebitions, you do it with public uprisings of various sorts.And there I was wondering why none of those private revolutions were coming off. Clearly I should have been staging these in public. Doh

Your post is a pleasant reminder that RevLeft is actually improving. I honestly wouldn't have thought it but its been some time since I had a moron throw the whole "Leninist vanguard" strawman at me. Clearly I hadn't been hanging around OI enough. As for the "lecturing", please don't think that I ascribe any importance to people who think that Communism does not involve revolution or that love really is the answer


The EZLN were not crushed in the 'early 90s', considering they actually began armed uprising in '94, this seems a bit confusing to meI suppose that you could argue that 1994 is more the 'mid-nineties' than the 'early nineties'... if you wanted to be a complete and utter pedant


Saying the Zapatistas didn't receive enough international support seems quite ridiculous to me, they were the poster boys of alter-globalisation, have had Naomi Klein to David Graeber to John Holloway etc going on about them for years and probably had more transnational solidarity networks than any other group I can remember in recent years.Yes, they are favourites of the limousine liberals and champagne socialists. Stan Goff devoted an interesting chapter in Full Metal Disorder to the contrasting perception of EZLN and FARC in the West

[Bud Struggle]

FARC = kidnapping, drug trade, children soldiers, violence against indigenous people--yea, that's REAL Communism.:rolleyes:

[Invincible Summer]

3. Saying the Zapatistas didn't receive enough international support seems quite ridiculous to me, they were the poster boys of alter-globalisation, have had Naomi Klein to David Graeber to John Holloway etc going on about them for years and probably had more transnational solidarity networks than any other group I can remember in recent years.

At least when I used the term "support," I meant that they aren't that well funded by or really being defended by other movements or organizations; afaik, no one is telling the Mexican army to bugger off the EZLN's case.




What? When did I mention Maoists? And when did I claim that Europe possessed an armed revolutionary movement? :confused:

You didn't, but my point is that hardly any organizations of the "revolutionary left" are taking the actions that you would deem to be "revolutionary," in this case, taking arms against the bourgeois state.



What I do reserve my ire for are those socialists, the ones without the Mexican Army "up their ass", who continue to insist that the Zapatistas are a revolutionary movement and one whose tactics are worth emulating

You show me a 'leftist' who believes that "making socialism" involves coexisting with the bourgeois state and I'll show you a reformist or a liberal
So the only tactic that you disagree with is their more reformist approach?

Do you think (not asking to read anyone's minds) that this is truly their only goal, or that it is a strategic move? Do you think that, under better circumstances, they would try to re-enact 1994?

And really, I would think that given their material conditions, campaigning for anything more than peaceful co-existance at this point is a bit much.

[bricolage]

I suppose that you could argue that 1994 is more the 'mid-nineties' than the 'early nineties'... if you wanted to be a complete and utter pedant

Pedantry aside, the Zapatistas continued/continue long past '94.


Yes, they are favourites of the limousine liberals and champagne socialists.

Petty slurs aside (however much I may agree with them) none of this discredits the Zapatistas as a movement.

[RGacky3]

You show me a 'leftist' who believes that "making socialism" involves coexisting with the bourgeois state and I'll show you a reformist or a liberal

They arn't coexisting with the state, they are seperating from it, they are autonomous, thats like saying bolivia is not socialist because it has captialist states next to it and they coexist.


Did I say that the Mexican Army had the potential to crush EZLN in the early nineties or did I say that they did? There was a war and EZLN lost. This is a matter of historical fact that is hardly open to debate

As to why the Mexican government did not follow up their victories in the field with a full reoccupation of the MAREZ, I don't claim to know. I can only speculate that it was simply not worth the effort and hostile international media attention. One thing that is abundantly clear is the that the 1996 accords were not negotiated from a position of Zapatista strength


You define winning and loosing wars very strangely, the Mexican armies goal was to eliminate the EZLN, the EZLNs goal was to survive and make an autonomous area and have self-determination ....

whether the EZLN won militarily or through media attention, the EZLN still got generally autonomy, its like saying the North Vietnameese lost the war because so many more of them died.


Because they seek to achieve their aims through the path of political struggle through... peaceful initiative (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sixth_Declaration_of_the_Lacandon_Jungle#VI_-_How_We_Are_Going_To_Do_It)


So unless its an armed struggle its reformist? Their goals are not to change capitalism, its to get rid of it, and they've done that in their areas. They arn't running for office for goodness sake.


As for the "lecturing", please don't think that I ascribe any importance to people who think that Communism does not involve revolution or that love really is the answer

Except I don't think the only way to revolution is cammoflage ak47s and berrets with red stars.


I'll take FARC or Sendero Luminoso any day.

you mean the drug runners? Lets see has FARC actually liberated anyone?? Has FARC made any sort of socialism? Nope, they've made an army (good job there), and made money from kiddnappings and drug protection (good job there), results matter my friend.

EZNL has created socialism, has liberated people, FARC has'nt done shit except for violence.