Zapatistas

[ComradeMan]

Do people here support the EZLN and the Zapatistas?

I also found this site where you can support work in Chiapas

Schools for Chiapas (http://www.schoolsforchiapas.org/english/about-us/mission.html)

If you understand Italian or Spanish there is also some stuff here

Ya Basta! (http://www.yabasta.it/)

[ellipsis]

I have a comrade in Ya Basta! we had a blast taking zapatista spanish classes together in san cristobal de las casas.

[ComradeMan]

I have a comrade in Ya Basta! we had a blast taking zapatista spanish classes together in san cristobal de las casas.

Buon lavoro Compagno!!! ;) I guess your avatar does kind of suggest it too.... ;)

I've noticed some people criticising them and calling them non-revolutionaries etc etc...

[Bud Struggle]

I bought some coffee from them from some online site. I'll see if I can find it.

[RGacky3]

Who does'nt support the Zapatistas?

[ComradeMan]

Who does'nt support the Zapatistas?


This does not change the fact that the Zapatistas do not conduct revolutionary activity and is able to co-exist and pose no threat to the existing order in Mexico......

Others have called them "capitulators" but I couldn't find the thread.

[hatzel]

Once again, I'm under the lady's thumb and never dare say anything bad about any Mexican / group of Mexicans. Therefore: Zapatistas are awesome.

...yeah, that should please her, if she happens to read this...

In seriousness, though, why would it make any difference if "the Zapatistas do not conduct revolutionary activity and is able to co-exist and pose no threat to the existing order in Mexico"? I didn't know everybody was forced to, for some reason, fight to assert their system over the entirety of an existing state...as long as they improve conditions for those inside their de facto borders, what's not to like? And I think that if they did conduct revolutionary activity everywhere else in Mexico, in the process posing a threat to existing order in Mexico, the Mexican state might feel a bit more urgency in sending in the troops to crush that little break-away idea. Which would no doubt be somewhat harmful to all people in the area...

[RGacky3]

Others have called them "capitulators" but I couldn't find the thread.

Who is that anal? Well whatever, I'm not gonna ask.

[ComradeMan]

Who voted NO!!! -? Why....?

[Bud Struggle]

Well, I think they are cute and cuddly! :)

[ellipsis]

Who does'nt support the Zapatistas?

Well, Reclaimeddasein has a problem with the fact that the zapatistas did not reciprocate calls of solidarity with various Marxists groups.

So i think MLs and MLMs may be haters. At least some of them.

[RGacky3]

So i think MLs and MLMs may be haters. At least some of them.

Well, at least no rational people would be against them. Thank God the maoists did'nt take over that revolt.

[Lunatic Concept]

I dont really see any reason to be against them. They all support all our different revolutionary ideologies in their own way, and do not let ideological fanaticism drag them down. I think it makes them more adaptable and approachable(?!) as a revolutionary force.

[ComradeMan]

I like them because they are:-

1) bottom-up
2) they adapt to local needs and conditions
3) they are not blinded by ideology
4) they seem to have intelligent leadership
5) they are working hard for the local people
6) they don't shoot peasants

[#FF0000]

Well, Reclaimeddasein has a problem with the fact that the zapatistas did not reciprocate calls of solidarity with various Marxists groups.

I think this is a valid criticism.

[Tablo]

I like them because they are:-

1) bottom-up
2) they adapt to local needs and conditions
3) they are not blinded by ideology
4) they seem to have intelligent leadership
5) they are working hard for the local people
6) they don't shoot peasants
Exactly. This is why I'm so willing to support them, but refuse to support other revolutionary groups.

[Lunatic Concept]

I could see that more as an attempt to avoid alienating any other tendencies or groups that may also support them- they do not want to define themselves too closely to any existing political movements.

[Ele'ill]

I could see that more as an attempt to avoid alienating any other tendencies or groups that may also support them- they do not want to define themselves too closely to any existing political movements.


Are they a group that can be supported

[Bud Struggle]

I like them because they are:-

1) bottom-up
2) they adapt to local needs and conditions
3) they are not blinded by ideology
4) they seem to have intelligent leadership
5) they are working hard for the local people
6) they don't shoot peasants

And they don't post on RevLeft! :)

[Ele'ill]

And they don't post on RevLeft! :)

Another fine post by Bud Struggles- well done

[Bud Struggle]

Another fine post by Bud Struggles- well done

You know as well as I do--they'd be in OI in a heartbeat. They aren't lonely people sitting on the internet Seattle. They have a life. They are REAL Revolutionarines. :D

[#FF0000]

Why would they be restricted?

[Bud Struggle]

Why would they be restricted?

Thet aren't realo Revolutionjaries--it's been discussed a million times on RevLeft.

And for the most part they are ANTI-Abortion. EEks.

it also seems that they are a creation of the Catholic Church--at least in part.

[#FF0000]

No they aren't. They provide free abortions for women. Maybe it doesn't hold for every area under the Zapatistas but they aren't ardently anti-abortion.

And we don't restrict people for not being "real revolutionaries", whatever that means.

[ComradeMan]

Thet aren't realo Revolutionjaries--it's been discussed a million times on RevLeft.

And for the most part they are ANTI-Abortion. EEks.

Bud, they are not anti-abortion- abortion is illegal in Mexico anyway.

They are anti-narco though.




And Women also have rights… (http://www.ciesas.edu.mx/proyectos/relaju/cd_relaju/Ponencias/Mesa%20Hern%C3%A1ndez-Cervone/MillanMoncayoMargara.pdf)
Zapatista gender discourse and practice at different levels in Mexico. (http://www.ciesas.edu.mx/proyectos/relaju/cd_relaju/Ponencias/Mesa%20Hern%C3%A1ndez-Cervone/MillanMoncayoMargara.pdf)
Márgara Millán (http://www.ciesas.edu.mx/proyectos/relaju/cd_relaju/Ponencias/Mesa%20Hern%C3%A1ndez-Cervone/MillanMoncayoMargara.pdf)

Extract: The "gender justice" linked to Zapatismo has also generated a discussion and negotiation toward the interior of Mexican feminism.11 The more visible parts of this feminism are articulated in the journal Debate Feminista, which is perhaps the main site of the more important currents of English, Italian and French feminism in translation, as well as articulating women’s political interventions. In the political arena, it has promoted feminist party organization through projects like DiVersa and the political party Por un México Posible; also importantly, it has advocated the decriminalization of abortion and the promotion of women’s reproductive rights.

[Struggle]

It would be worrying to discover of a 'leftist' who does not support the Zapatistas. Although, the left is full of worrying people, so I would not be surprised.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud, they are not anti-abortion- abortion is illegal in Mexico anyway. They are anti-abortion.


They are anti-narco though.Good for them.

Thay are what Communism SHOULD look like.

[#FF0000]

Thay are what Communism SHOULD look like

I really really really want you to outline what this means because I think it would be hilarious.

Also being "anti-narco" in southern Mexico is KIND OF DIFFERENT than being anti-narco in England or something.

[#FF0000]

It would be worrying to discover of a 'leftist' who does not support the Zapatistas. Although, the left is full of worrying people, so I would not be surprised.

I don't know. There's a lot of valid criticisms to make.

I mean they aren't doing much and they hardly reach out at all.

[ComradeMan]

I don't know. There's a lot of valid criticisms to make.

I mean they aren't doing much and they hardly reach out at all.

Because they can't!

Their solutions might not be the solutions suitable for other struggles- but they can set a good example. Their revolution is true in my opinion because it starts with them and they don't go doing commander and conquer stuff all over the place.

[Ele'ill]

They are not a group that's looking for tangible support. They do act as a model to a certain point. I support what I know of their resistance ideologically.

[#FF0000]

Because they can't!

Er, I'm not saying they should go and take down the Mexican state on their own. I'm talking about how they sort of decline to be affiliated with... hardly anyone. We actually have a user who's been to Chiapas and back a few times to work with the Zapatistas who was pretty critical of them for these reasons.

I mean, the Zapatistas are great and doing the best they can in a lot of ways but still.


Their solutions might not be the solutions suitable for other struggles- but they can set a good example. Their revolution is true in my opinion because it starts with them and they don't go doing commander and conquer stuff all over the place.

Their solutions of being willfully isolated? Maybe the folks at Freetown Christiania could learn a thing or two but capitalism is still intact and there is still a lot of bullshit going on in Mexico.

[Struggle]

I don't know. There's a lot of valid criticisms to make.

I mean they aren't doing much and they hardly reach out at all.

I didn't say there is not valid criticism to be made. However, there is a difference between having valid criticisms, and considering a movement counter-revolutionary, reactionary or doing more harm than good simply because one has criticism of that said movement.

I would hope there will be criticisms of any movement, but that doesn’t mean a movement cannot be progressive simply because one offers criticism.

If you can offer me valid reasons why one shouldn’t be supporting the Zapatistas, I am more than willing to listen and take on board what you have to say.

[#FF0000]

Nah I think the Zapatistas are alright, so.

I think most people would say they're kind of useless on a larger scale, which I think is sort of true. But like I said, they do good things.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud, they are not anti-abortion- abortion is illegal in Mexico anyway.

They are anti-narco though.



And Women also have rights… (http://www.ciesas.edu.mx/proyectos/relaju/cd_relaju/Ponencias/Mesa%20Hern%C3%A1ndez-Cervone/MillanMoncayoMargara.pdf)
Zapatista gender discourse and practice at different levels in Mexico. (http://www.ciesas.edu.mx/proyectos/relaju/cd_relaju/Ponencias/Mesa%20Hern%C3%A1ndez-Cervone/MillanMoncayoMargara.pdf)
Márgara Millán (http://www.ciesas.edu.mx/proyectos/relaju/cd_relaju/Ponencias/Mesa%20Hern%C3%A1ndez-Cervone/MillanMoncayoMargara.pdf)

Extract: The "gender justice" linked to Zapatismo has also generated a discussion and negotiation toward the interior of Mexican feminism.11 The more visible parts of this feminism are articulated in the journal Debate Feminista, which is perhaps the main site of the more important currents of English, Italian and French feminism in translation, as well as articulating women’s political interventions. In the political arena, it has promoted feminist party organization through projects like DiVersa and the political party Por un México Posible; also importantly, it has advocated the decriminalization of abortion and the promotion of women’s reproductive rights.

There has never been an abortion in that part of Mexico under the EZLN.

[ComradeMan]

Nah I think the Zapatistas are alright, so.

I think most people would say they're kind of useless on a larger scale, which I think is sort of true. But like I said, they do good things.

Useless in comparison to all those other great successes out there like....

err....

who?

:crying:

[#FF0000]

Useless in comparison to all those other great successes out there like....

err....

who?

:crying:

Yeah but other groups aren't really useless for lack of trying. The EZLN seems to be really happy being hella isolated outside of their own support network.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah but other groups aren't really useless for lack of trying. The EZLN seems to be really happy being hella isolated outside of their own support network.

Because look what those support networks have often brought historically.

I think they are realistic to be honest.

A good small example is better than a grand scale failure.

[Ele'ill]

Where does the EZLN go from here?

[#FF0000]

There has never been an abortion in that part of Mexico under the EZLN.

If so then it's because no one wanted abortions, I guess.

What I'm saying is I don't buy that for a second.

[#FF0000]

Because look what those support networks have often brought historically.

I think they are realistic to be honest.

A good small example is better than a grand scale failure.

What reason could one have to not affiliate with ANY other groups, especially when you're dealing with Mexican Army in your territory for a decade? It's a bad idea.

[The Hong Se Sun]

I like them because they are:-

1) bottom-up
2) they adapt to local needs and conditions
3) they are not blinded by ideology
4) they seem to have intelligent leadership
5) they are working hard for the local people
6) they don't shoot peasants


Whats funny is that this is how real Maoist work also. My one critique is that they do not expand nor make unity coalitions to overthrow their puppet government.

[ComradeMan]

What reason could one have to not affiliate with ANY other groups, especially when you're dealing with Mexican Army in your territory for a decade? It's a bad idea.

Because affiliation may lead to compromising your principles and may lead to you losing control, i.e. the bottom-up structure.

[#FF0000]

Whats funny is that this is how real Maoist work also.

Historically, that isn't really the case.

"Guys, kill every swallow. No, really, this is a good idea."

[#FF0000]

Because affiliation may lead to compromising your principles and may lead to you losing control, i.e. the bottom-up structure.

But they don't affiliate with anarchist groups either.

[Bud Struggle]

What reason could one have to not affiliate with ANY other groups, especially when you're dealing with Mexican Army in your territory for a decade? It's a bad idea.

They are affiliated with Catholic Charities--to a large extent.

[gorillafuck]

They are anti-abortion.
Oh okay then, I'll just trust you on that.

[Bud Struggle]

Oh okay then, I'll just trust you on that.

I'm affiliated with Catholic Charities and they adopt--from there. That's how it's done.

[#FF0000]

They are affiliated with Catholic Charities--to a large extent.

Source?

Not that it'd surprise me.

I mean it wouldn't from their end. It would surprise me if the Catholic Church was a-okay with the Zapatistas though.

[Bud Struggle]

Source?

Not that it'd surprise me.

I mean it wouldn't from their end. It would surprise me if the Catholic Church was a-okay with the Zapatistas though.

I'm affiliated with those guys and there is a lot of money headed that way. Adoptions and such--but just general aid. The EZLN has warm spot in the Catholic heart.

I'll see if I can get publlished sources.

[RGacky3]

I don't think the Zapatistas have an official position on abortion, I'm pretty sure they leave it up to the individual, but considering most of the people in that area are catholic, I'm betting most of them are against abortion.

Remember the Zapatistas are not a political party or group like that in the traditional sence, they arn't a top down organization that sets policy, they are a loose democratic entity that has a very very limited scope of power, one which is entirely dependant on the scope that is mandated on them by the community. They could teach Europe and America a lot about democracy.

As far as the Catholic Church, your right many priests in the area were instrumental in the Zapatistas success, infact I'd be willing to say that if it was'nt for the Catholic priests in that area they might not have been successfull. But it was'nt the official catholic church, it was liberation theologists within the church.

[Bud Struggle]

I like the Zapatistas- they're a bit like the C21 Vanguard....

[ComradeMan]

I like the Zapatistas- they're a bit like the C21 Vanguard....

You've said a lot there!!!

[#FF0000]

I like the Zapatistas- they're a bit like the C21 Vanguard....

How

[ComradeMan]

Whats funny is that this is how real Maoist work also. My one critique is that they do not expand nor make unity coalitions to overthrow their puppet government.

Well, they were all about the enforcing the San Andres accords, perhaps they think it would not be right for them to expand out of their area or perhaps they are aware they do not have the capability.

To be honest I think small scale localised Zapatista groups are better than one overarching party over a huge territorial area.

[hatzel]

How

Because the C21 Vanguard also isn't connected to a wide network of affiliate groups, and at least some are Catholics. Seems like a good enough means of comparison to me!

...though I guess the Zapatista's lack of affiliate groups and the C21 Vanguard's are...well, let's just say they're for different reasons...I mean, lots of groups do want to support the Zapatistas...:laugh:

On this theme, I'd say that the Zapatistas are more like Behar, as one quarter of beharnikim are Mexican, and half like tostadas! That's what I base my analysis of political groups on, the food preferences of their members...:sleep:

[Marion]

I'm against the Zapatistas as, indeed, I'm against all other nationalist movements: http://libcom.org/library/the-sixth-declaration-zapatistas-nationalism-state.

[ComradeMan]

I'm against the Zapatistas as, indeed, I'm against all other nationalist movements: http://libcom.org/library/the-sixth-declaration-zapatistas-nationalism-state.

Ah.... Libcom...


Could you explain more in depth why you are against them?

[Marion]

Loads of reasons. The article (not all of which I'd now agree with) lays it out in more depth, but the main arguments are:

1) Nationalism (as seen in the anti-foreigner nature of much of their dialogue, wrapping up in Mexican flags, national anthems, pro "nation's rights")
2) Belief in a more progressive capitalism (e.g. their arguments in favour of nationalisation)
3) Calls for new constitutions
4) Wish to entend liberal democracy (with addition of more direct democracy)

In addition, their frontism and lack of any class analysis is, to say the least, a concern. I think that a large proportion of those who support the Zapatistas would be livid if the political organisations they were part of tried introducing similar policies in their manifestos...

[Bud Struggle]

I think that a large proportion of those who support the Zapatistas would be livid if the political organisations they were part of tried introducing similar policies in their manifestos...

I'm not so sure. You have to start the Revolution somewhere and these guys seem to be as good a place as any. What they tend to be is--realistic. People aren't going to turn away from long held beliefs and ideas in a flash just because some Marxists say it's a good idea--that's how you get top heavy state capitalism life the USSR. Maybe the Zapatistas are letting Communism grow organically one step at a time.

Whatever they are doing it's a long ways better than the MExico that surrounds them. They may not be perfect but they seem better off than a lof of "Communisms" that came and went before.

If that's the wat they want to do it--good for them.

[#FF0000]

Having a commune in the woods isn't communism. What the Zapatistas have can't be communism as long as the majority of the world is capitalist.

[Cane Nero]

Having a commune in the woods isn't communism. What the Zapatistas have can't be communism as long as the majority of the world is capitalist.

At least they wont purge you, or send you to the gulag.:laugh:

[hatzel]

At least they wont purge you, or send you to the gulag.:laugh:

Source?

:rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

Having a commune in the woods isn't communism. What the Zapatistas have can't be communism as long as the majority of the world is capitalist.

Well then Cuba wasn't/isn't communist either, nor a lot of other areas... by that logic...

[#FF0000]

Well then Cuba wasn't/isn't communist either, nor a lot of other areas... by that logic...

Why yes. That is true.

[ComradeMan]

Why yes. That is true.

It's got to start somewhere-- I think they are working on the basis of solving their own problems first.

[#FF0000]

It's got to start somewhere-- I think they are working on the basis of solving their own problems first.

But that doesn't mean they have to be isolated and that doesn't mean they shouldn't acknowledge that they have greater ambitions in the future, which I am pretty sure they do not.

[ComradeMan]

But that doesn't mean they have to be isolated and that doesn't mean they shouldn't acknowledge that they have greater ambitions in the future, which I am pretty sure they do not.

The trouble is, look what happens so often when people start affiliating with others and when "vested" interestests begin to emerge. Their situation is also particular to their area. Someone before, Marion, described them as "nationalists", I don't think that's true either. To my knowledge they have no problem with being within Mexico, they just want autonomy to be able look after their own affairs on a localised level. I think that's a good idea. Remember Subcomandante Marcos is not an ethnic Chiapan Maya either.

[#FF0000]

The trouble is, look what happens so often when people start affiliating with others and when "vested" interestests begin to emerge.

Can you give me an example of this? I mean I'm not talking about forming a coalition government here.

[ComradeMan]

Can you give me an example of this? I mean I'm not talking about forming a coalition government here.

Chavez- FARC?

[Sosa]

:thumbup:Yes, they get my support

[redSHARP]

no group is perfect. I support their struggle in a general sense, but i know relatively little so i will hold back any major opinion. I do know the sub-commandant zero did ride around Mexico advocating their cause.

[Marion]

Someone before, Marion, described them as "nationalists", I don't think that's true either. To my knowledge they have no problem with being within Mexico, they just want autonomy to be able look after their own affairs on a localised level.

The article I referenced has more detail but the language of most of their declarations and statements (particularly the Sixth Declaration) is clearly nationalist. They repeatedly claim Mexico to be "ours", speak all the time about Mexico as the "patria", talk of their "struggle for Mexico" and complain repeatedly about "foreign" influence in Mexico. Marcos has even been quoted as stating that the Zapatistas "put love for the patria... above everything". Yes, they want more of a say in how local issues are run and talk alot about international solidarity (as do countless nationalist groups) but very much within a liberal, democratic and Mexican national framework.

The Zapatistas repeatedly suggest that their words be taken seriously ("Our words are our weapons" etc etc). I think the first stage in doing this is to accept, much in the way we would with any other group, that the Zapatistas continued and repeated nationalistic statements be taken as serious declarations of their objectives.

[ComradeMan]

The article I referenced has more detail but the language of most of their declarations and statements (particularly the Sixth Declaration) is clearly nationalist. They repeatedly claim Mexico to be "ours", speak all the time about Mexico as the "patria", talk of their "struggle for Mexico" and complain repeatedly about "foreign" influence in Mexico. Marcos has even been quoted as stating that the Zapatistas "put love for the patria... above everything". Yes, they want more of a say in how local issues are run and talk alot about international solidarity (as do countless nationalist groups) but very much within a liberal, democratic and Mexican national framework.

But from their Sixth Declaration

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/auto/selva6.html

And then we also said we wanted democracy, liberty and justice for all Mexicans although we were concentrated on the Indian peoples. Because it so happened that we, the EZLN, were almost all only indigenous from here in Chiapas, but we did not want to struggle just for own good, or just for the good of the indigenous of Chiapas, or just for the good of the Indian peoples of Mexico. We wanted to fight along with everyone who was humble and simple like ourselves and who was in great need and who suffered from exploitation and thievery by the rich and their bad governments here, in our Mexico, and in other countries in the world.
.....

lV. How We See Our Country Which is Mexico

Now we will talk to you about how we see what is going on in our Mexico. What we see is our country being governed by neoliberals. So, as we already explained, our leaders are destroying our nation, our Mexican Patria. And the work of these bad leaders is not to look after the well being of the people, instead they are only concerned with the well being of the capitalists. For example, they make laws like the Free Trade Agreement, which end up leaving many Mexicans destitute, like campesinos and small producers, because they are "gobbled up" by the big agro-industrial companies. As well as workers and small businesspeople, because they cannot compete with the large transnationals who come in without anybody saying anything to them and even thanking them, and they set their low salaries and their high prices. So some of the economic foundations of our Mexico, which were the countryside and industry and national commerce, are being quite destroyed, and just a bit of rubble - which they are certainly going to sell off - remains.

And these are great disgraces for our Patria. Because food is no longer being produced in our countryside, just what the big capitalists sell, and the good lands are being stolen through trickery and with the help of the politicians. What is happening in the countryside is the same as Porfirismo, but, instead of hacendados, now there are a few foreign businesses which have well and truly screwed the campesino. And, where before there were credits and price protections, now there is just charity...and sometimes not even that.

As for the worker in the city, the factories close, and they are left without work, or they open what are called maquiladoras, which are foreign and which pay a pittance for many hours of work. And then the price of the goods the people need doesn't matter, whether they are expensive or cheap, since there is no money. And if someone was working in a small or midsize business, now they are not, because it was closed, and it was bought by a big transnational. And if someone had a small business, it disappeared as well, or they went to work clandestinely for big businesses which exploit them terribly, and which even put boys and girls to work. And if the worker belonged to his union in order to demand his legal rights, then no, now the same union tells him he will have to put up with his salary being lowered or his hours or his benefits being taken away, because, if not, the business will close and move to another country. And then there is the "microchangarro," which is the government's economic program for putting all the city's workers on street corners selling gum or telephone cards. In other words, absolute economic destruction in the cities as well.

And then what happens is that, with the people's economy being totally screwed in the countryside as well as in the city, then many Mexican men and women have to leave their Patria, Mexican lands, and go to seek work in another country, the United States. And they do not treat them well there, instead they exploit them, persecute them and treat them with contempt and even kill them. Under neoliberalism which is being imposed by the bad governments, the economy has not improved. Quite the opposite, the countryside is in great need, and there is no work in the cities. What is happening is that Mexico is being turned into a place where people are working for the wealth of foreigners, mostly rich gringos, a place you are just born into for a little while, and in another little while you die. That is why we say that Mexico is dominated by the United States.

Now, it is not just that. Neoliberalism has also changed the Mexican political class, the politicians, because they made them into something like employees in a store, who have to do everything possible to sell everything and to sell it very cheap. You have already seen that they changed the laws in order to remove Article 27 from the Constitution so that ejidal and communal lands could be sold. That was Salinas de Gortari, and he and his gangs said that it was for the good of the countryside and the campesino, and that was how they would prosper and live better. Has it been like that? The Mexican countryside is worse than ever and the campesinos more screwed than under Porfirio Diaz. And they also say they are going to privatize - sell to foreigners - the companies held by the State to help the well being of the people. Because the companies don't work well and they need to be modernized, and it would be better to sell them. But, instead of improving, the social rights which were won in the revolution of 1910 now make one sad...and courageous. And they also said that the borders must be opened so all the foreign capital can enter, that way all the Mexican businesses will be fixed, and things will be made better. But now we see that there are not any national businesses, the foreigners gobbled them all up, and the things that are sold are worse than those that were made in Mexico.

And now the Mexican politicians also want to sell PEMEX, the oil which belongs to all Mexicans, and the only difference is that some say everything should be sold and others that only a part of it should be sold. And they also want to privatize social security, and electricity and water and the forests and everything, until nothing of Mexico is left, and our country will be a wasteland or a place of entertainment for rich people from all over the world, and we Mexican men and women will be their servants, dependent on what they offer, bad housing, without roots, without culture, without even a Patria.

So the neoliberals want to kill Mexico, our Mexican Patria. And the political parties not only do not defend it, they are the first to put themselves at the service of foreigners, especially those from the United States, and they are the ones who are in charge of deceiving us, making us look the other way while everything is sold, and they are left with the money. All the political parties that exist right now, not just some of them. Think about whether anything has been done well, and you will see that no, nothing but theft and scams. And look how all the politicians always have their nice houses and their nice cars and luxuries. And they still want us to thank them and to vote for them again. And it is obvious, as they say, that they are without shame. And they are without it because they do not, in fact, have a Patria, they only have bank accounts.

Reading through that declaration I just don't see them as ethnic nationalists to be honest.

Their talk of Mexico is within the context of a Mexico for all her peoples, the "Patria" in that sense- bear in mind this is translated from Spanish too.


further on

And we want to tell the Latin American peoples that we are proud to be a part of you, even if it is a small part. We remember quite well how the continent was also illuminated some years ago, and a light was called Che Guevara, as it had previously been called Bolivar, because sometimes the people take up a name in order to say they are taking up a flag.

And we want to tell the people of Cuba, who have now been on their path of resistance for many years, that you are not alone, and we do not agree with the blockade they are imposing, and we are going to see how to send you something, even if it is maize, for your resistance. And we want to tell the North American people that we know that the bad governments which you have and which spread harm throughout the world is one thing - and those North Americans who struggle in their country, and who are in solidarity with the struggles of other countries, are a very different thing.

And we want to tell the Mapuche brothers and sisters in Chile that we are watching and learning from your struggles. And to the Venezuelans, we see how well you are defending your sovereignty, your nation's right to decide where it is going. And to the indigenous brothers and sisters of Ecuador and Bolivia, we say you are giving a good lesson in history to all of Latin America, because now you are indeed putting a halt to neoliberal globalization. And to the piqueteros and to the young people of Argentina, we want to tell you that, that we love you. And to those in Uruguay who want a better country, we admire you. And to those who are sin tierra in Brazil, that we respect you. And to all the young people of Latin America, that what you are doing is good, and you give us great hope.

And we want to tell the brothers and sisters of Social Europe, that which is dignified and rebel, that you are not alone. That your great movements against the neoliberal wars bring us joy. That we are attentively watching your forms of organization and your methods of struggle so that we can perhaps learn something. That we are considering how we can help you in your struggles, and we are not going to send euro because then they will be devalued because of the European Union mess. But perhaps we will send you crafts and coffee so you can market them and help you some in the tasks of your struggle. And perhaps we might also send you some pozol, which gives much strength in the resistance, but who knows if we will send it to you, because pozol is more our way, and what if it were to hurt your bellies and weaken your struggles and the neoliberals defeat you.

And we want to tell the brothers and sisters of Africa, Asia and Oceania that we know that you are fighting also, and we want to learn more of your ideas and practices.

[RGacky3]

The article I referenced has more detail but the language of most of their declarations and statements (particularly the Sixth Declaration) is clearly nationalist. They repeatedly claim Mexico to be "ours", speak all the time about Mexico as the "patria", talk of their "struggle for Mexico" and complain repeatedly about "foreign" influence in Mexico. Marcos has even been quoted as stating that the Zapatistas "put love for the patria... above everything". Yes, they want more of a say in how local issues are run and talk alot about international solidarity (as do countless nationalist groups) but very much within a liberal, democratic and Mexican national framework.

The Zapatistas repeatedly suggest that their words be taken seriously ("Our words are our weapons" etc etc). I think the first stage in doing this is to accept, much in the way we would with any other group, that the Zapatistas continued and repeated nationalistic statements be taken as serious declarations of their objectives.

They are nationalistic in the sense that they have a specific goal and a specific area that they want to liberate.

Does every single group need to be all encompasing? Thats rediculous, but they are not nationalistic at all, they are an issue group, and that issue is liberation for the mayan campesinos in Chiapas.

Of coarse they want to get rid of forein influence in Mexico, who does'nt? I judge groups based on their actions, they talk about la patria of coarse, because the people they represent apparently have a love of their land and communities.

Remember the Zapatistas are NOT a group with policies that they sell to people, they are a direct democratic representative of the people of Chiapas, democracy, its a funny concept huh?

Is a Black liberation group racist? Is a gay rights group sexist? Is a workers union group against social struggles because they are focusing on workers issues? Its rediculous to call them nationalist because they restrict their scope of struggle based on the scope that the people they represent are worried about.

[Marion]

But from their Sixth Declaration

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/auto/selva6.html

And then we also said we wanted democracy, liberty and justice for all Mexicans although we were concentrated on the Indian peoples. Because it so happened that we, the EZLN, were almost all only indigenous from here in Chiapas, but we did not want to struggle just for own good, or just for the good of the indigenous of Chiapas, or just for the good of the Indian peoples of Mexico. We wanted to fight along with everyone who was humble and simple like ourselves and who was in great need and who suffered from exploitation and thievery by the rich and their bad governments here, in our Mexico, and in other countries in the world.
.....

lV. How We See Our Country Which is Mexico

Now we will talk to you about how we see what is going on in our Mexico. What we see is our country being governed by neoliberals. So, as we already explained, our leaders are destroying our nation, our Mexican Patria. And the work of these bad leaders is not to look after the well being of the people, instead they are only concerned with the well being of the capitalists. For example, they make laws like the Free Trade Agreement, which end up leaving many Mexicans destitute, like campesinos and small producers, because they are "gobbled up" by the big agro-industrial companies. As well as workers and small businesspeople, because they cannot compete with the large transnationals who come in without anybody saying anything to them and even thanking them, and they set their low salaries and their high prices. So some of the economic foundations of our Mexico, which were the countryside and industry and national commerce, are being quite destroyed, and just a bit of rubble - which they are certainly going to sell off - remains.

And these are great disgraces for our Patria. Because food is no longer being produced in our countryside, just what the big capitalists sell, and the good lands are being stolen through trickery and with the help of the politicians. What is happening in the countryside is the same as Porfirismo, but, instead of hacendados, now there are a few foreign businesses which have well and truly screwed the campesino. And, where before there were credits and price protections, now there is just charity...and sometimes not even that.

As for the worker in the city, the factories close, and they are left without work, or they open what are called maquiladoras, which are foreign and which pay a pittance for many hours of work. And then the price of the goods the people need doesn't matter, whether they are expensive or cheap, since there is no money. And if someone was working in a small or midsize business, now they are not, because it was closed, and it was bought by a big transnational. And if someone had a small business, it disappeared as well, or they went to work clandestinely for big businesses which exploit them terribly, and which even put boys and girls to work. And if the worker belonged to his union in order to demand his legal rights, then no, now the same union tells him he will have to put up with his salary being lowered or his hours or his benefits being taken away, because, if not, the business will close and move to another country. And then there is the "microchangarro," which is the government's economic program for putting all the city's workers on street corners selling gum or telephone cards. In other words, absolute economic destruction in the cities as well.

And then what happens is that, with the people's economy being totally screwed in the countryside as well as in the city, then many Mexican men and women have to leave their Patria, Mexican lands, and go to seek work in another country, the United States. And they do not treat them well there, instead they exploit them, persecute them and treat them with contempt and even kill them. Under neoliberalism which is being imposed by the bad governments, the economy has not improved. Quite the opposite, the countryside is in great need, and there is no work in the cities. What is happening is that Mexico is being turned into a place where people are working for the wealth of foreigners, mostly rich gringos, a place you are just born into for a little while, and in another little while you die. That is why we say that Mexico is dominated by the United States.

Now, it is not just that. Neoliberalism has also changed the Mexican political class, the politicians, because they made them into something like employees in a store, who have to do everything possible to sell everything and to sell it very cheap. You have already seen that they changed the laws in order to remove Article 27 from the Constitution so that ejidal and communal lands could be sold. That was Salinas de Gortari, and he and his gangs said that it was for the good of the countryside and the campesino, and that was how they would prosper and live better. Has it been like that? The Mexican countryside is worse than ever and the campesinos more screwed than under Porfirio Diaz. And they also say they are going to privatize - sell to foreigners - the companies held by the State to help the well being of the people. Because the companies don't work well and they need to be modernized, and it would be better to sell them. But, instead of improving, the social rights which were won in the revolution of 1910 now make one sad...and courageous. And they also said that the borders must be opened so all the foreign capital can enter, that way all the Mexican businesses will be fixed, and things will be made better. But now we see that there are not any national businesses, the foreigners gobbled them all up, and the things that are sold are worse than those that were made in Mexico.

And now the Mexican politicians also want to sell PEMEX, the oil which belongs to all Mexicans, and the only difference is that some say everything should be sold and others that only a part of it should be sold. And they also want to privatize social security, and electricity and water and the forests and everything, until nothing of Mexico is left, and our country will be a wasteland or a place of entertainment for rich people from all over the world, and we Mexican men and women will be their servants, dependent on what they offer, bad housing, without roots, without culture, without even a Patria.

So the neoliberals want to kill Mexico, our Mexican Patria. And the political parties not only do not defend it, they are the first to put themselves at the service of foreigners, especially those from the United States, and they are the ones who are in charge of deceiving us, making us look the other way while everything is sold, and they are left with the money. All the political parties that exist right now, not just some of them. Think about whether anything has been done well, and you will see that no, nothing but theft and scams. And look how all the politicians always have their nice houses and their nice cars and luxuries. And they still want us to thank them and to vote for them again. And it is obvious, as they say, that they are without shame. And they are without it because they do not, in fact, have a Patria, they only have bank accounts.

Reading through that declaration I just don't see them as ethnic nationalists to be honest.

Their talk of Mexico is within the context of a Mexico for all her peoples, the "Patria" in that sense- bear in mind this is translated from Spanish too.


further on

And we want to tell the Latin American peoples that we are proud to be a part of you, even if it is a small part. We remember quite well how the continent was also illuminated some years ago, and a light was called Che Guevara, as it had previously been called Bolivar, because sometimes the people take up a name in order to say they are taking up a flag.

And we want to tell the people of Cuba, who have now been on their path of resistance for many years, that you are not alone, and we do not agree with the blockade they are imposing, and we are going to see how to send you something, even if it is maize, for your resistance. And we want to tell the North American people that we know that the bad governments which you have and which spread harm throughout the world is one thing - and those North Americans who struggle in their country, and who are in solidarity with the struggles of other countries, are a very different thing.

And we want to tell the Mapuche brothers and sisters in Chile that we are watching and learning from your struggles. And to the Venezuelans, we see how well you are defending your sovereignty, your nation's right to decide where it is going. And to the indigenous brothers and sisters of Ecuador and Bolivia, we say you are giving a good lesson in history to all of Latin America, because now you are indeed putting a halt to neoliberal globalization. And to the piqueteros and to the young people of Argentina, we want to tell you that, that we love you. And to those in Uruguay who want a better country, we admire you. And to those who are sin tierra in Brazil, that we respect you. And to all the young people of Latin America, that what you are doing is good, and you give us great hope.

And we want to tell the brothers and sisters of Social Europe, that which is dignified and rebel, that you are not alone. That your great movements against the neoliberal wars bring us joy. That we are attentively watching your forms of organization and your methods of struggle so that we can perhaps learn something. That we are considering how we can help you in your struggles, and we are not going to send euro because then they will be devalued because of the European Union mess. But perhaps we will send you crafts and coffee so you can market them and help you some in the tasks of your struggle. And perhaps we might also send you some pozol, which gives much strength in the resistance, but who knows if we will send it to you, because pozol is more our way, and what if it were to hurt your bellies and weaken your struggles and the neoliberals defeat you.

And we want to tell the brothers and sisters of Africa, Asia and Oceania that we know that you are fighting also, and we want to learn more of your ideas and practices.

I don't think any of this refutes that they are a nationalist group. As I stated earlier they talk a lot about international solidarity. However, that doesn't mean that they aren't nationalist. Most nationalist groups are quite happy to speak of international solidarity and learning from other struggles - the SNP used to bang on about lessons and support from Catalonia, some Irish movements used to go on about solidarity with the Basques. If saying you are in solidarity with struggles in other parts of the world is all you need to stop being called a nationalist movement then almost no group would be nationalist.

Yeah, you are right that they talk about wanting a Mexico open to many different types of people and this is a core element of Zapatista thinking. This might not make them "ethnic nationalists" but their repeated calls for improving the nation-state (making it more inclusive, new constitutions etc) shows they are still nationalists and, as a result, dangerous to workers.

[Marion]

They are nationalistic in the sense that they have a specific goal and a specific area that they want to liberate.

Does every single group need to be all encompasing? Thats rediculous, but they are not nationalistic at all, they are an issue group, and that issue is liberation for the mayan campesinos in Chiapas.

Why is it ridiculous for groups to favour internationalism? There's a number of groups who argue against nation-state approaches, including left communist and some anarchist groups. The point is that "mayan campesinos" or any other group cannot miraculously remove themselves from capitalism without the destruction of capital worldwide.


Of coarse they want to get rid of forein influence in Mexico, who does'nt?

Me. I'd argue that being exploited by a Mexican boss is no different to being exploited by an American one. Certainly not as far as the destruction of capitalism is involved. Is yours an official view of the IWW?


I judge groups based on their actions, they talk about la patria of coarse, because the people they represent apparently have a love of their land and communities.

I think this tends to happen a bit with the Zapatistas. When what they actually stand for is pointed out there is a claim that they should be supported because their actions are somehow better. Firstly, this ignores the fact that the Zapatistas repeatedly state that their words are important. Secondly, it ignores the fact that a big part of their work is based on the "community" discussion of these very documents. Thirdly, it suggests (against all evidence) that there is no link between their words and actions.


Remember the Zapatistas are NOT a group with policies that they sell to people, they are a direct democratic representative of the people of Chiapas, democracy, its a funny concept huh?

Well, if you think the Zapatistas aren't trying to "sell" their policies to people what do you think they are doing with things like La Otra, the declarations, encuentros etc? Moreover, do you really think that the Zapatistas are secretely against nationalism (despite all their words) but, instead, choose to "represent" a group of people who are very much in favour of it?


Is a Black liberation group racist? Is a gay rights group sexist? Is a workers union group against social struggles because they are focusing on workers issues? Its rediculous to call them nationalist because they restrict their scope of struggle based on the scope that the people they represent are worried about.

I disagree entirely. If you had a group in Ireland complaining about foreign involvement, wanting a new constitution, singing the national anthem, wrapping themselves in the flag and talking about the "motherland" there wouldn't be a problem calling them nationalists. Instead, because they have managed the media well and seem, well, cuddlier than other groups they are somehow not nationalist. Honestly, try re-reading the Sixth but inserting "Ireland" or "North Korea" or "USA" or "UK" instead of Mexico and you'll see how bizarre it seems that anyone can consider that they're not nationalist...

[RGacky3]

Why is it ridiculous for groups to favour internationalism? There's a number of groups who argue against nation-state approaches, including left communist and some anarchist groups. The point is that "mayan campesinos" or any other group cannot miraculously remove themselves from capitalism without the destruction of capital worldwide.


Because most people have immidiate issues they have to take care of. I'm not supporting the nation-state approach, but I"m saying its a perfectly valid approach and is not at all nationalism.

As for your second point, yes they can, and they did, they created an autonomous socialist community in their area, obviously they still suffer the effects of outside Capitalism, but they are, for all intents and purposes, a success.


Me. I'd argue that being exploited by a Mexican boss is no different to being exploited by an American one. Certainly not as far as the destruction of capitalism is involved. Is yours an official view of the IWW?


I'd absolutely agree, but if you want me to explain how imperialism works and makes the conditions of a third world country worse, we're gonna have to start a new thread, but you should know this already.

As far as an official view of the IWW? The IWW, like the Zapatistas, does'nt really have official views, except for the short basic principle in the constitution (i.e. its a revolutoinary union aimed at dismanteling capitalism).


I think this tends to happen a bit with the Zapatistas. When what they actually stand for is pointed out there is a claim that they should be supported because their actions are somehow better. Firstly, this ignores the fact that the Zapatistas repeatedly state that their words are important. Secondly, it ignores the fact that a big part of their work is based on the "community" discussion of these very documents. Thirdly, it suggests (against all evidence) that there is no link between their words and actions.


So your writing of an entire group, who've achieved something that many would have considered next to impossible, one of the most successfull revolutionary groups of the last 50 years, because they used the word "patria?" Well good luck finding something perfect to support.


Well, if you think the Zapatistas aren't trying to "sell" their policies to people what do you think they are doing with things like La Otra, the declarations, encuentros etc? Moreover, do you really think that the Zapatistas are secretely against nationalism (despite all their words) but, instead, choose to "represent" a group of people who are very much in favour of it?


What they are trying to sell is support for the Zapatistas and for poor people to revolt. THey arn't running for elections, they arn't tryint to take any power.

The words you described hardly are nationalism, the group they represent as far I understand, had a war against the Mexican state. They want to change conditions in Mexico BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN MEXICO AND IT EFFECTS THEM!!!


I disagree entirely. If you had a group in Ireland complaining about foreign involvement, wanting a new constitution, singing the national anthem, wrapping themselves in the flag and talking about the "motherland" there wouldn't be a problem calling them nationalists. Instead, because they have managed the media well and seem, well, cuddlier than other groups they are somehow not nationalist. Honestly, try re-reading the Sixth but inserting "Ireland" or "North Korea" or "USA" or "UK" instead of Mexico and you'll see how bizarre it seems that anyone can consider that they're not nationalist...

So I suppose every single political party is a nationalist party.

The Zapatista constitution change was so they could get their land back, the foreign involvement they complain about is imperialism which EVERY leftist is against.

THe Zapatistas scope is primarily Chiapas, but they also support movements first within mexico to change the Mexican system (BECAUSE THEY LIVE THERE) and they also support movements worldwide. IF your calling that Nationalism, then every group is nationalist.

[Sasha]

Thet aren't realo Revolutionjaries--it's been discussed a million times on RevLeft.

And for the most part they are ANTI-Abortion. EEks.

it also seems that they are a creation of the Catholic Church--at least in part.


the zapatista's esp the EZLN have actualy very progressive views on abortion and contraception (and even homosexuality), even more so if you consider they are based in the most underdeveloped poor rural area's of an central american catholic dominated deeply patriarchal country.

some reading up for budstruggle:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/mexico-archives-79/1050-mexicos-street-brigade-sex-revolution-and-social-change
http://midwifeintheclouds.blogspot.com/2009/01/zapatista-women-revolutionary-law.html
http://mujeresylasextaorg.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/a-summary-of-the-zapatista-womens-gathering/
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=138644429904
http://www.narconews.com/Issue44/article2502.html

[Bud Struggle]

I never said there wasn't an active campaign for abortion. But for the most part people there are anti-Abortion. For that matter the Catholic Chruch through Catholic Charities has a very active adoption program going on in that area. I know that because I'm contributer to CC.

I'll see if I can dig up some stats on adoption/abortion.

[ComradeMan]

I disagree entirely. If you had a group in Ireland complaining about foreign involvement, wanting a new constitution, singing the national anthem, wrapping themselves in the flag and talking about the "motherland" there wouldn't be a problem calling them nationalists. Instead, because they have managed the media well and seem, well, cuddlier than other groups they are somehow not nationalist. Honestly, try re-reading the Sixth but inserting "Ireland" or "North Korea" or "USA" or "UK" instead of Mexico and you'll see how bizarre it seems that anyone can consider that they're not nationalist...

Well I would consider them nationalists more if they were pushing for an exlusively Mayan state, which they are not.

You also have to see the differences between the histories of indigenous peoples in Latin America and the examples you have given. They are not trying to create a nationalist state based on an ethnic culture or some perceived set of ethnic values and cultures. They accept they are Mayans for the most part and are starting bottom-up. I see them as saying what they say as a message against nationalism within the context of a cosmopolitan/multi-ethnic Mexican state.

[Marion]

Well I would consider them nationalists more if they were pushing for an exlusively Mayan state, which they are not.

I don't really think it works this way. I think you are nationalist if you endorse the nation-state (which the Zapatistas do) - you may well feel it is a better form of nationalism if it is a pluralistic version or a worse one if it is based solely on one ethnicity, but it doesn't change the fact they are nationalists. Everyone is subsumed under being Mexican, with foreign involvement, rather than the fact of exploitation, being seen as of primary importance. Various British parties talk about the advantages of having a multi-ethnic society, it doesn't make them any less nationalist...


I see them as saying what they say as a message against nationalism within the context of a cosmopolitan/multi-ethnic Mexican state.

How can they be giving a "message against nationalism" by being a nationalist movement? I'm repeating myself a bit, but, imagine if I I wrapped myself in a flag, sang the national anthem, complained about foreigners or "gringos" ruining my "motherland" and talked about struggling for the "motherland" and my love for it. Then imagine if I turned around and claimed I wasn't nationalist!

The Zapatistas themselves are explicitly nationalist and don't exactly hide it. If you need one last example, how can they be against nationalism when they include the "LN" in "EZLN"?

[ComradeMan]

....

I guess you may be an anarchist? :lol:

I understand from an anarchist point of view how the nation-state issue might be a problem, I also understand how some of the Zapatistas comments may seem politcally naive. But at the end of the day I think they are doing good work and avoiding a lot of shit that other Latin American "revolutionary" groups have got embroiled in, so I support them.

Of course my support is critical- if they start doing stuff that's off the rails, hell no. But I don't think they will.

I found this at Libcom.

http://libcom.org/library/a-critique-zapatista-other-campaign-grupo-socialista-libertario

8) We recognize the valor and sincerity of all the people who make up the Zapatista communities. We do not doubt for an instant that their sole motivation is to fight against the terrible oppression that they have endured at the hands of the state and capital, an authentic struggle in which many have lost their lives. It is precisely for this reason that today we criticize the path that is currently being followed, just as previously hundreds of organizations criticized the erroneous alliance with the PRD and Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas. Today, when the majority of those who proclaim themselves to be “anti-capitalists” follow the siren song either of “revolutionary nationalism” or of decrepit Marxism-Leninism, we, the revolutionary anarchists of the Libertarian Socialist Group, criticize openly and radically the false route on to which the Zapatista leadership is directing its followers.

9) For this reason, the Libertarian Socialist Group demands:
Freedom for all the Zapatista political prisoners!
An end to the harassment of the Zapatista communities!
Freedom for all the political prisoners of the Other Campaign!
An end to the harassment of members of the Other Campaign!

I suppose we'll have to agree to differ on this one then! But you have raised some interesting and valid points too, don't think they are discounted.:cool:

VIVA ZAPATA!!! :lol: