Zapatista's and the EZLN

[The Cheshire Cat]

Does anyone know anything about the current state of the Zapatista communities or the fighting of the EZLN with paramilitairies and the Mexican army?

I'm very interested in them because I heard that the Zapatista communities form the only anarchist society today. But there is little information about them on the web and their own site is in Spanish, and I have not yet mastered the Spanish language.

And most of the news that ís on the web about them is at least a couple of years old.

So has anyone maybe visited them recently or familiy living in Chiapas? Or maybe just someone who understands Spanish and is able to translate some important news from their site? (http://www.ezln.org.mx/)

Thank you.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I've been trying to find out soem stuff too recently, sadly no luck so far..only old stuff on wikipedia

[Peoples' War]

They are just a militant group of utopian ultra-lefts. To be quite honest, they are irrelevant today.

I don't think they are much more than a group of armed activists now.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

There was a documentary about their history if you want that.Was called "A Place Called Chiapes" (Dont think I spelled that right)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

They are just a militant group of utopian ultra-lefts. To be quite honest, they are irrelevant today.

I don't think they are much more than a group of armed activists now.

Lay off the flame bait and please back up your claims of irrelevancy.

[Peoples' War]

Lay off the flame bait and please back up your claims of irrelevancy.

It's not a flame, it's an accurate label.

They are Utopian, they are not Marxists (scientific socialists).

They are ultra-leftists, they are anarchists.

[Sasha]

They are just a militant group of utopian ultra-lefts. To be quite honest, they are irrelevant today.

I don't think they are much more than a group of armed activists now.

Funny, cause most "utopian ultra-lefts" are of the opinion that it (for now) is a failed revolution because it got stuck in reformist bourgeois cooperation...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It's not a flame, it's an accurate label.

They are Utopian, they are not Marxists (scientific socialists).

They are ultra-leftists, they are anarchists.

Provide information as to why they are irrelevant. If someone asks a question here the least we can do it back up our claims with detailed knowledge.

[Prometeo liberado]

Could y'all please stay on topic. The OP asked a very important question that I also have asked myself. What is their current state of affairs? Anything peripheral is just that.:)

[Magón]

It's not a flame, it's an accurate label.

They are Utopian, they are not Marxists (scientific socialists).

They are ultra-leftists, they are anarchists.

Anarchism first off, does not equal Utopianism, no matter how much you want it to be true. It's just not.

The EZLN tried something that went against the norm in Mexico. Which I can say is a lot more than what the Left in America, UK, Europe and else where was doing. What they tried ultimately didn't get far, but they tried to get something started and did what they could with what they had. So no, calling them "Utopians" is not an accurate label at all. It's a ignorant label, given by someone ignorant of their condition.

[Skyhilist]

Wait, how can they be anarchist if they have a leader (Subcommandante Marcos)?

[x359594]

Wait, how can they be anarchist if they have a leader (Subcommandante Marcos)?

First, Marcos is a spokesman and not a leader. Second, ad hoc elected leadership is not contrary to anarchism.

[x359594]

Returning to the EZLN, here's their official website: http://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/. Entirely in Spanish, but the latest entry is dated April 24, 2012. The EZLN is currently involved in a campaign to defend a collective coffee plantation worked by the Tzotzil indigenous people.

As to whether or not the EZLN is an anarchist organization, that description remains open to question.

[ellipsis]

The Zapatista's still exists, as do the EZLN. The zapatista communities (caracoles) are self governing and are more or less autonomous zones within mexico. They have a great hospital in oventic and different kinds of economic cooperatives. The mexican government is still conducting "low-instensity" warfare against these communities and others in chiapas, this amounts to things like raping women and other means of instilling fear and making life miserable.

Last I heard, the EZLN, including marcos had retreated into the jungle to chill and hide, following lots of public actions in other parts of mexico (la otra compana, delegado zero).

International support for both the zapatista communities and the EZLN have waned since the 90s with the decline of the anti-globalization movement. There are still a number of ways to support them, financially and otherwise.

the sixth sun and a place called chiapas (free on google video) should give you a basic understanding of the initial uprising.

Mexico solidarity network is a chicago based solidarity organization, they have regular english news about chiapas, the zapatistas and mexico in general, its a good way to keep up on events in the country from a progressive perspective. http://mexicosolidarity.org/

Both the communities and the EZLN are still relevant and worthy of study.

[blake 3:17]

There's a fair bit on Upsidedownworld, which covers Latin America from the Left: http://upsidedownworld.org/main/

There's quite a bit of recent(ish) stuff on it in their Mexican archive: http://upsidedownworld.org/main/mexico-archives-79


This piece is 15 years old, but well worth considering if you are trying to understand Zapatista ideology. http://mondediplo.com/1997/09/marcos

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Does anyone know anything about the current state of the Zapatista communities or the fighting of the EZLN with paramilitairies and the Mexican army?

I'm very interested in them because I heard that the Zapatista communities form the only anarchist society today. But there is little information about them on the web and their own site is in Spanish, and I have not yet mastered the Spanish language.

And most of the news that ís on the web about them is at least a couple of years old.

So has anyone maybe visited them recently or familiy living in Chiapas? Or maybe just someone who understands Spanish and is able to translate some important news from their site? (http://www.ezln.org.mx/)

Thank you.

I know people who have been to EZLN-affiliated communes. They are, from what I understand, well-managed and largely democratic, although far from perfect. They suffer obviously from many of the drawbacks of rural communities with imperfect or no access to education in their own language. However, they are economically self-sustaining collectives which have lasted nearly 20 years now, and this is an achievement which cannot be minimized. They continue to act as an inspiration to indigenous people around the world who want to empower themselves.


As to whether the Zapatistas are "Anarchists" or not, this is an interesting question. Zapata was influenced by some Anarchist thought, but he was in no way committed to the ideology. What he fought for was "land and liberty" for the indigenous peasants, and for land rights to be decided by the communities themselves. This has inspired modern indigenous people to take up the cause. However, whether this means they are "Anarchists" per se does not follow, seeing as how the anarchist influence is very indirect.

Going from what I have read, their ideology is a form of "Socialism/Collectivism" grounded in the indigenous culture, basing it on traditions of collective decision making the way it was historically in the peripheral parts of Mesoamerica and during the colonial period. Socialism, Anarchism and Communism all inspire them, but these are not the uniting ideologies. Instead it seems to more be an re-assertion of aspects of the local political culture which is threatened by the state.

So perhaps the EZLN deserves its own category, which recognizes the roots of its political project in the indigenous culture from which it stems, more than some ideology developed in Europe during the industrial era.


They are just a militant group of utopian ultra-lefts. To be quite honest, they are irrelevant today.

I don't think they are much more than a group of armed activists now.

They are not at all irrelevant to the indigenous communities who have higher living standards and levels of political autonomy and authority than neighboring indigenous communities.


It's not a flame, it's an accurate label.

They are Utopian, they are not Marxists (scientific socialists).

They are ultra-leftists, they are anarchists.

Some "Scientific socialists" apparently have their feelings hurt because a group of indigenous peasants managed to achieve what no Leninist party has ever managed to do, which is create a network of collectives free from bureaucratic, military or partisan domination :rolleyes:



Wait, how can they be anarchist if they have a leader (Subcommandante Marcos)?

Sub is the prefix for "underneath", Marcos is a member of the collective leadership but is underneath the real commanders, many of whom were indigenous men and women. They chose Marcos as a spokesperson because the indigenous leaders and soldiers of the EZLN had a poor grasp of the Spanish language, and so chose an envoy who could articulate their demands to the broader community. The sad reality is that in Mexico, it is looked down upon to know an indigenous language instead of Spanish and seen as a sign of ignorance, and the government probably lacked qualified envoys that new the languages anyways.


Returning to the EZLN, here's their official website: http://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/. Entirely in Spanish, but the latest entry is dated April 24, 2012. The EZLN is currently involved in a campaign to defend a collective coffee plantation worked by the Tzotzil indigenous people.

As to whether or not the EZLN is an anarchist organization, that description remains open to question.

I echo the claim that Enlace Zapatista is a good website. You can translate it into english with Google translate.


The Zapatista's still exists, as do the EZLN. The zapatista communities (caracoles) are self governing and are more or less autonomous zones within mexico. They have a great hospital in oventic and different kinds of economic cooperatives. The mexican government is still conducting "low-instensity" warfare against these communities and others in chiapas, this amounts to things like raping women and other means of instilling fear and making life miserable.

Last I heard, the EZLN, including marcos had retreated into the jungle to chill and hide, following lots of public actions in other parts of mexico (la otra compana, delegado zero).

International support for both the zapatista communities and the EZLN have waned since the 90s with the decline of the anti-globalization movement. There are still a number of ways to support them, financially and otherwise.

the sixth sun and a place called chiapas (free on google video) should give you a basic understanding of the initial uprising.

Mexico solidarity network is a chicago based solidarity organization, they have regular english news about chiapas, the zapatistas and mexico in general, its a good way to keep up on events in the country from a progressive perspective. http://mexicosolidarity.org/

Both the communities and the EZLN are still relevant and worthy of study.

I think this sums up a lot of it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Zapatistas are not anarchists.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Thank you for the helpfull answers (at least, some of them)! I appeared to me though, that most of the information is old (yet still helpfull). I guess they are more inactive than they were before. Or perhaps they are just silented by the Mexican government and the media, I'm not sure. I hope to visit them one day, but this will probably not be very soon:( First I must learn Spanish. Although, I did come across this site: http://www.serazln-altos.org/eng/celm.html

There is apparently a language school run by the Zapatista's were you can learn Spanish. Sounds interesting, but I am not 18 yet and I have to idea how I would have to communicate with them as I don't speak Spanish or any indigenous language.

There are still many unclarities about them though. If anybody has more information or maybe made a trip to the Zapatista's, please let us know!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Thank you for the helpfull answers (at least, some of them)! I appeared to me though, that most of the information is old (yet still helpfull). I guess they are more inactive than they were before. Or perhaps they are just silented by the Mexican government and the media, I'm not sure. I hope to visit them one day, but this will probably not be very soon:( First I must learn Spanish.

They are not really "inactive", they merely turned inwards after the peace negotiations with the Mexican government. The Zapatistas in Mexico control territory with ~100,000 people constituting numerous autonomous collectives. The focus of the Zapatistas moved from revolution across Mexico to revolutionizing the level of social and economic services available to the indigenous people of Chiapas.



There is apparently a language school run by the Zapatista's were you can learn Spanish. Sounds interesting, but I am not 18 yet and I have to idea how I would have to communicate with them as I don't speak Spanish or any indigenous language.
The Zapatistas focus more on social programs like this these days than militarily confronting the government. Perhaps this is why they get less attention. Their program has entered a social and economic phase, trying to improve the material conditions of the people within the communities.


The Zapatistas are not anarchists.

It is good to clarify why this is the case though, and what their ideology could be called instead. The Zapatistas of the 1910s were not anarchists themselves but did have some influence from contemporary Mexican Anarchist thinkers. Those Zapatistas were never committed to anarchism however, and the EZLN is the same way. The same goes for Marxism and the current movement. They do have Marxist and Anarchist influences, but as much as anything else they represent a form of politically conscious peasant collectivism that successfully confronted the Mexican attempt to destroy the economic commons on which they relied to make a living. This seems to be the main issue for them - replacing state authority with local collective authority to manage the commons, which obviously became necessary after NAFTA and various changes the PRI made to the law like scrapping the constitutional protection for agricultural communes. I don't know what taxonomic category the so-called "professional" class of Marxist and Anarchist thinkers, political scientists, economists and philosophers have applied to them.

[Imposter Marxist]

Okay, just because they aren't Marxist-Leninists doesn't mean they shouldn't be given a bit of respect. They did lead a struggle against the Mexican State. Even if I disagree with them, you have to respect that. The reason they didn't seize power isn't because they didn't talk about Hoxha, its because they simply couldn't fend off the Mexican state with the US backing it up.

Its actually quite surprising they still even exist at all.

[wunks]

Lay off the flame bait and please back up your claims of irrelevancy.I don't see how that was a flame bait. its true that they are not very relevant nowadays.

[Ismail]

Okay, just because they aren't Marxist-Leninists doesn't mean they shouldn't be given a bit of respect. They did lead a struggle against the Mexican State. Even if I disagree with them, you have to respect that. The reason they didn't seize power isn't because they didn't talk about Hoxha, its because they simply couldn't fend off the Mexican state with the US backing it up.

Its actually quite surprising they still even exist at all.They don't seem to be Marxists. As one source notes (http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer4.htm), "In 1994, it was reported that the leader of the Zapatista rebels in Mexico, Subcommander Marcos said that 'he expects the United States to support the Zapatistas once US intelligence agencies are convinced the movement is not influenced by Cubans or Russians.' 'Finally,' Marcos said, 'they are going to conclude that this is a Mexican problem, with just and true causes.' Yet for many years, the United States has been providing the Mexican military with all the training and tools needed to kill Marcos' followers and, most likely, before long, Marcos himself."

They're a progressive force, but not much more.

[ellipsis]

I hope to visit them one day, but this will probably not be very soon:( First I must learn Spanish. Although, I did come across this site: http://www.serazln-altos.org/eng/celm.html

There is apparently a language school run by the Zapatista's were you can learn Spanish. Sounds interesting, but I am not 18 yet and I have to idea how I would have to communicate with them as I don't speak Spanish or any indigenous language.

There are still many unclarities about them though. If anybody has more information or maybe made a trip to the Zapatista's, please let us know!

I know many people who have taken their spanish and tzotzil (one local indigeneous language) classes. You would probably need to go through a local solidarity organization, Ya Basta based in italy is closest group i can think of.

The classes are basically political/historical education classes that are conducted in spanish. The teachers are very used to dealing with non-spanish speakers (thats the point of the class) and europeans, you're lack of spanish proficiency is not an issue, although it might be helpful to learn some spanish before you go. Knowing english will get you a long ways in mexico so I don't think language barriers are going to be a big issue for you, should you decided to study spanish (there are other academic programs)

[The Cheshire Cat]

As one source notes (http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer4.htm), "In 1994, it was reported that the leader of the Zapatista rebels in Mexico, Subcommander Marcos said that 'he expects the United States to support the Zapatistas once US intelligence agencies are convinced the movement is not influenced by Cubans or Russians.'

I am currently reading 'Our word is our weapon', written my subcommandante Marcos, and from what I have read so far, I can not imagine that subcommandante Marcos said anything lika that. He doesn't seem to like the USA in any way at all. I recommend the book, by the way, it gives some good information about the indigenous and zapatista struggle and it also contains some humurous 'children stories', always with a good message though.

[ellipsis]

They don't seem to be Marxists. As one source notes (http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer4.htm), "In 1994, it was reported that the leader of the Zapatista rebels in Mexico, Subcommander Marcos said that 'he expects the United States to support the Zapatistas once US intelligence agencies are convinced the movement is not influenced by Cubans or Russians.' 'Finally,' Marcos said, 'they are going to conclude that this is a Mexican problem, with just and true causes.' Yet for many years, the United States has been providing the Mexican military with all the training and tools needed to kill Marcos' followers and, most likely, before long, Marcos himself."

They're a progressive force, but not much more.

Marcos and other early founders of the EZLN where actually M-Ls and before the EZLN there was a more traditional marxist guerrilla group that morphed into the EZLN.

Their distancing themselves from Marxism(-Leninism) is way, way more complicated than that quote from almost 20 years ago that you provided. I don't quite understand it completely, but i think the recent collapse of the USSR and political considerations on how to gain global support were factors that led to the EZLN not seeking support from marxist nations. They also wanted to maintain this as a mexican struggle composed of mexican, which is why, for example non mexicans cannot join the ranks of the EZLN.

Sidenote, the counter insurgent forces that you talk about, some of the soldiers that we trained to be spec. ops. capable later left the mexican army and formed the drug cartel "Los Zetas," which is now one of the most powerful and violent cartels in mexico. both the Mexican State and the US federales are fighting the troops that the US trained and the counter-insurgent style cartle that they helped create, in order to suppress a small guerrilla movement in the south and stifle opposition to NAFTA, and the yanqui imperialist project in latin america.:tt2:

[x359594]

...i think the recent collapse of the USSR and political considerations on how to gain global support were factors that led to the EZLN not seeking support from marxist nations. They also wanted to maintain this as a mexican struggle composed of mexican, which is why, for example non mexicans cannot join the ranks of the EZLN...

Not only as a Mexican struggle but as an indigenous peoples' struggle. The majority of the EZLN is made up of Tzotzil speaking people, many of whom are not even fluent in Spanish.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Marcos and other early founders of the EZLN where actually M-Ls and before the EZLN there was a more traditional marxist guerrilla group that morphed into the EZLN.

Yeah I recall reading that the EZLN was started by cadres from some Maoist organization that fled into the boonies after a round of government repression crushed their urban operations. Marcos being one of them.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Sidenote, the counter insurgent forces that you talk about, some of the soldiers that we trained to be spec. ops. capable later left the mexican army and formed the drug cartel "Los Zetas," which is now one of the most powerful and violent cartels in mexico. both the Mexican State and the US federales are fighting the troops that the US trained and the counter-insurgent style cartle that they helped create, in order to suppress a small guerrilla movement in the south and stifle opposition to NAFTA, and the yanqui imperialist project in latin america.:tt2:

I just love how the US always get themself into big trouble every time they train foreign soldiers:laugh: They just fuck it up every single time.:)

[Homo Songun]

Sub is the prefix for "underneath", Marcos is a member of the collective leadership but is underneath the real commanders, many of whom were indigenous men and women. They chose Marcos as a spokesperson because the indigenous leaders and soldiers of the EZLN had a poor grasp of the Spanish language, and so chose an envoy who could articulate their demands to the broader community.

In my opinion this looks like an after-the-fact rationalization of a politically inconvenient situation, i.e., a white dude from Mexico City leading an indigenous revolt.

[Grenzer]

They don't seem to be Marxists. As one source notes (http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer4.htm), "In 1994, it was reported that the leader of the Zapatista rebels in Mexico, Subcommander Marcos said that 'he expects the United States to support the Zapatistas once US intelligence agencies are convinced the movement is not influenced by Cubans or Russians.' 'Finally,' Marcos said, 'they are going to conclude that this is a Mexican problem, with just and true causes.' Yet for many years, the United States has been providing the Mexican military with all the training and tools needed to kill Marcos' followers and, most likely, before long, Marcos himself."

They're a progressive force, but not much more.

They aren't Marxists, and have never claimed to be. In fact they explicitly say that they are not Marxists, communists, or Anarchists. They seem to be content with the label of indigenous rights group.

As admirable as their struggle is, I just don't see any revolutionary(in terms of communism) potential in them. If the Mexican government ever gets its shit together and takes care of the Cartesl(which at this point is looking pretty unlikely for the foreseeable future), then the Zapatistas will probably be fucked. They aren't enough of a threat for the Government to expend the resources taking care of them at the moment. While I would agree that they are perhaps utopian in some ways, I don't think they are "ultra-left". If anything, they aren't left enough.

[Homo Songun]

First, Marcos is a spokesman and not a leader. Second, ad hoc elected leadership is not contrary to anarchism.

What is ad hoc about the leadership? It looks like the same faces for decades now. Honest question.

[x359594]

What is ad hoc about the leadership? It looks like the same faces for decades now. Honest question.

According to on the ground sources the internal leadership has changed from year to year (sometimes from month to month) while the public face remains the same. Again, Sub-commandante Marcos is a spokesman, not a leader; his title of sub-commandante underlines his subordinate role.

[Imposter Marxist]

They don't seem to be Marxists. As one source notes (http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer4.htm), "In 1994, it was reported that the leader of the Zapatista rebels in Mexico, Subcommander Marcos said that 'he expects the United States to support the Zapatistas once US intelligence agencies are convinced the movement is not influenced by Cubans or Russians.' 'Finally,' Marcos said, 'they are going to conclude that this is a Mexican problem, with just and true causes.' Yet for many years, the United States has been providing the Mexican military with all the training and tools needed to kill Marcos' followers and, most likely, before long, Marcos himself."

They're a progressive force, but not much more.


1) I never said they were Marxists.
2) Who cares what they call themselves? Its content what matters. There can be socialism without the revolution being led by a Communist Party/Socialist party, etc.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

As admirable as their struggle is, I just don't see any revolutionary(in terms of communism) potential in them. If the Mexican government ever gets its shit together and takes care of the Cartesl(which at this point is looking pretty unlikely for the foreseeable future), then the Zapatistas will probably be fucked. They aren't enough of a threat for the Government to expend the resources taking care of them at the moment. While I would agree that they are perhaps utopian in some ways, I don't think they are "ultra-left". If anything, they aren't left enough.

It seems the bigger criticism isn't of their local methods but their ability to spread the movement and overthrow the Mexican government. Then again, no group, including the many ML groups in Mexico's history, have come so close to changing the material relationships in that country since the Revolution, or at the very least the late 60s with the CPM.

Whether they are "left" enough isn't the issue, the issue is that they are based in very poor peasant communities that happen to be particularly politically conscious. This means that they have the ability to organize themselves effectively towards a collective economic system in their own area but not the economic means to institute some overthrow of international Capitalist society, because they themselves lack the economic means to do so.


What is ad hoc about the leadership? It looks like the same faces for decades now. Honest question.

What leaders are you speaking of? Marcos is not a leader, he is an envoy to the world which does not speak indigenous Mayan language. Commandante Ramona died many years ago. Is there some other leader you are thinking of?

EDIT I didnt see this earlier:


In my opinion this looks like an after-the-fact rationalization of a politically inconvenient situation, i.e., a white dude from Mexico City leading an indigenous revolt.

I agree with theredson, this is very patronizing towards the indigenous people of Chiapas and makes some pretty broad assumptions about those communities. Few people in these communities know Spanish very well, which is a serious issue, necessitating an envoy like Marcos who can mediate. Now, he might appear as a "leader" to you, but I would bet you haven't heard of any of the Commandantes in the EZLN, like Commandante Ramona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandante_Ramona):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Comandanta_Ramona_by_bastian.jpg/250px-Comandanta_Ramona_by_bastian.jpg

This is the problem with so-called "Scientific Marxists" ... when there's an insurrection that their theory cannot understand, like a politically conscious uprising of indigenous peasants, they struggle to fit it in their theory and end up dismissing it for reasons that have little or no factual basis.

[ellipsis]

In my opinion this looks like an after-the-fact rationalization of a politically inconvenient situation, i.e., a white dude from Mexico City leading an indigenous revolt.

There is no question that "white dudes"/mestizos from D.F. , including marcos, elisa and daniel(?) "started" the movement and help radicalize and organize indigenous people the EZLN. That doesn't mean he is/they are the "leader(s)." the ezln has, as another poster pointed out, a rotating leadership

marcos is not on the EZLN central committee(ezln-ccgi?) that issues orders (including to marcos) and approves the communiques he helps to pen. Marcos is not involved in any of the governance of zapatista communities.

Your opinion appear to be uninformed. Additionally its a little insulting to the indigenous, as if they couldn't have an insugency or comprise their own leadership without calling upon a uni professor (alledgedly) to lead them.

[Homo Songun]

There is no question that "white dudes"/mestizos from D.F. , including marcos, elisa and daniel(?) "started" the movement and help radicalize and organize indigenous people the EZLN. That doesn't mean he is/they are the "leader(s)." the ezln has, as another poster pointed out, a rotating leadership

marcos is not on the EZLN central committee(ezln-ccgi?) that issues orders (including to marcos) and approves the communiques he helps to pen. Marcos is not involved in any of the governance of zapatista communities.

The position of general secretary in the CPSU was originally a subordinate one too. I guess 'those questions over which one willingly suspends ones cynicism' could be a definition of politics for some people...


Your opinion appear to be uninformed. Additionally its a little insulting to the indigenous, as if they couldn't have an insugency or comprise their own leadership without calling upon a uni professor (alledgedly) to lead them.Please, don't bother with this sort of thing. It doesn't work. On me anyways.

[ellipsis]

Well I have studied the zapatistas a fair ammount and have a good understanding of their leadership structure and have countered your assertion using facts, while you have provided no evidence to support your assertion. Describe how Marcos is a leader or quit mucking up the forum with baseless claims aka straw men.

[ellipsis]

Additionally the ezln leadership is not in control of the Zapatista communities, the caracoles are self governing. Nobody is the leader of anybody.

[Magón]

The position of general secretary in the CPSU was originally a subordinate one too. I guess 'those questions over which one willingly suspends ones cynicism' could be a definition of politics for some people...

The EZLN isn't the CPSU. You can't compare the CPSU's form of assembly positions, the EZLN's because the EZLN didn't and hasn't taken anything from the CPSU at all. Though the position of general secretary in the CPSU, might have originally been a subordinate roll, the EZLN's subordinate roles are, and always have been, nothing but subordinate and nothing more. When the EZLN says someone's position is subordinate, it actually is, they don't mean it vague or mean it just to say it, unlike the CPSU.


Please, don't bother with this sort of thing. It doesn't work. On me anyways.

He's right though, and so is Theredson on what you know about the EZLN.

[Homo Songun]

Well I have studied the zapatistas a fair ammount and have a good understanding of their leadership structure Excellent! You would be in a good position to answer my questions then.

The questions are: (1) Does the "Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee - General Command" act in an executive function for the EZLN? (2) Is Marcos a member of the General Command? (3) How long has Marcos been a member of the General Command? and (4) How long do the other public members of the General Command typically serve in that role?


and have countered your assertion using facts, while you have provided no evidence to support your assertion. Describe how Marcos is a leader or quit mucking up the forum with baseless claims aka straw men. Chill comrade. I'm not conclusively asserting anything about the EZLN so far, only expressing speculative opinions and asking questions about its leadership. The difficulty seems to be that, of the two senses of the word 'leader' in use here, I am using the generic, dictionary sense of the term, rather than the (for lack of a better word) "anarchist" sense. I don't know the exact meaning of the latter, although it seems to be a product of normative categories, given the hostility I've engendered by asking about this. So to be clear my usage is the everyday neutral sense.

By the way, here is a Comandante who has apparently learned to speak in perfectly serviceable Spanish:

http://vimeo.com/23427224

Does that mean Marcos should now step down in the interests of democratic principles?

[ellipsis]

Excellent! You would be in a good position to answer my questions then.

The questions are: (1) Does the "Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee - General Command" act in an executive function for the EZLN? (2) Is Marcos a member of the General Command? (3) How long has Marcos been a member of the General Command? and (4) How long do the other public members of the General Command typically serve in that role?


IIRC 1)yes, although the EZLN have a distinctly different idea of displine and command, so it doesn't act as a military junta would 2)no, hence the title of subcomandante, as opposed to comandante, which would signify being a member of the general command. 3) AFAIK he has never been a member 4) which role? spokesperson? philosopher/theorist? member of the general command? in the later case I would say that I don't know.


Chill comrade. I'm not conclusively asserting anything about the EZLN so far, only expressing speculative opinions and asking questions about its leadership. The difficulty seems to be that, of the two senses of the word 'leader' in use here, I am using the generic, dictionary sense of the term, rather than the (for lack of a better word) "anarchist" sense. I don't know the exact meaning of the latter, although it seems to be a product of normative categories, given the hostility I've engendered by asking about this. So to be clear my usage is the everyday neutral sense.

huh? product of normative categories?

asking about it? you didn't ask anything, only expressed un-nuanced speculative/cynical opinion.

I am not asking for you to agree with me, but I would hope that you would at least take the time to elucidate your own position and write thoughtful posts. This last post of your proves you are capable of this.

i am using the term "leader" to mean somebody who has complete command, as we are talking about a military organization. Marcos does not make decisions or issue orders down through the ranks of the EZLN. He takes orders and follows the directives of the general command. he does not lead, he is a spokesperson and theoretician.

What is your definition for leader? "generic, dictionary sense" doesn't help me understand.


By the way, here is a Comandante who has apparently learned to speak in perfectly serviceable Spanish:

http://vimeo.com/23427224

Does that mean Marcos should now step down in the interests of democratic principles?


Step down? If the EZLN thought they had a better comrade to fill his position, they would use that comrade. If marcos had any real power within the organization, then there would be reason to have his position rotate. Seeing as he works in a non-leadership position, there are many reasons why continuing to use a skilled orator and write to be a spokesperson and the public (face) of the EZLN is a good idea.

Other posters claims that he was chosen for the role because of his spanish skills, which is a oversimplification. By one account, on the first day of the rebellion he became the unwilling spokesperson over the planned indigenous comrade who also spoke spanish. however He has kept the job, because he is good at what he does. For whatever reason people connect with marcos as a personality, his orations and writings, etc. The EZLN and the Zapatista communities are very connected to the world and rely in part on solidarity from around mexico and around the world. Marcos, as a symbol/character/idea is helpful in this.

[Homo Songun]

I don't know. By his own account (http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/marcos-weapon.html) he is a military commander in the EZLN. Wikipedia says he is in the General Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_Revolutionary_Indigenous_Committee), whereas other sources says he is above all personnel except the General Command (http://books.google.com/books?id=-yFGbHdH8oMC&pg=PA60&dq=%22Comite+Clandestino+Revolucionario+Indigena%2 2&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZfTCT53fCsaniQKam8HnBw&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22Comite%20Clandestino%20Revolucionario%20Indig ena%22&f=false). Thats what I mean by leadership essentially. It doesn't matter though, realistically he'd still be at the top of the movement even if he had neither responsibility. Normally when you talk about individuals that fulfill a certain kind of role because of specific talent, responsibilities, charisma, and experience we describe that as a leadership role. But even though Marcos has talent ("good at what he does"), responsibilities ("spokesperson and theoretician"), charisma ("people connect with marcos") and experience ("He has kept the job") he is not a leader. Why? Because he's Marcos. Weird. I guess you could use "leader" in scare quotes if it soothes your sensibilities, I won't mind.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Except the role and responsibility of a leader is to make explicit and decisive decisions based on the superiority of their subjective standpoint. A spokesperson and theoretician is not a leader, any more than Hillary Clinton, Molotov and Ribbebtrop were the leaders of the USA, USSR and Germany respectively. Marcos clearly has substantial influence, but there is no reason to think he is above, or more powerful than, the indigenous Commandantes. Perhaps the organization is less transparent and more authoritarian than it lets on, but without evidence this is just speculation.

[ellipsis]

I don't know. By his own account (http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/marcos-weapon.html) he is a military commander in the EZLN. Wikipedia says he is in the General Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_Revolutionary_Indigenous_Committee), whereas other sources says he is above all personnel except the General Command (http://books.google.com/books?id=-yFGbHdH8oMC&pg=PA60&dq=%22Comite+Clandestino+Revolucionario+Indigena%2 2&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZfTCT53fCsaniQKam8HnBw&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22Comite%20Clandestino%20Revolucionario%20Indig ena%22&f=false). Thats what I mean by leadership essentially. It doesn't matter though, realistically he'd still be at the top of the movement even if he had neither responsibility. Normally when you talk about individuals that fulfill a certain kind of role because of specific talent, responsibilities, charisma, and experience we describe that as a leadership role. But even though Marcos has talent ("good at what he does"), responsibilities ("spokesperson and theoretician"), charisma ("people connect with marcos") and experience ("He has kept the job") he is not a leader. Why? Because he's Marcos. Weird. I guess you could use "leader" in scare quotes if it soothes your sensibilities, I won't mind.

IMO, the is a HUGE difference between being "the leader" and "a member of leadership," and a subordinate one at that with 20+ people who you answer to. I stand corrected on marcos's membership in the general command, but the wikipedia article you cite pretty much backs me up. "This collective leadership of the EZLN is made up of 23 commanders and 1 subcommander (Subcommandante Marcos, who acts basically as speaker)."

Yes, he is influential to those on the outside who are looking in, but from my understanding, speaking to scholars of social movements who have spent a lot of time in the Zapatista communities, he doesn't hold the same prestige or status in the zapatista communities.

Yes he is a military officer, yes he holds a higher position as spokesperson. But such acts do not "the leader" make.

The mestizos who formed the FLN which was the nucleus for the EZLN radically changed both their politics and vision for the revolution as they became more connected to the indigenous communities. Marcos's ideology is very influenced by, among other things, his experiences with his compañeros and comrades in arms and indigenous cultures of mexico.

As somebody who has been involved in attempts at non- hierarchical political organization, I can say from experience that just because somebody takes an active role, devotes a disproportionate amount of time and influence, and is particularly skilled, does not mean that they exert their will over the rest of the organization or have their ideas be the ones which get acted upon.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I somehow managed to subscribe myself to their newsletter, altough I know nearly no Spanish at all. They sent updates and news on a daily basis so they are still very active. I have no idea what the news is about though:(
Time to hurry up with learning Russian and start learning Spanish.