Ezln

[one10]

I feel the EZLN is a great example of what a united-left can accomplish in the modern world. It's this sort of unity that I feel many leftists lack in other parts of the world.

What are your overall sentiments towards the EZLN movement?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

They're a great example of what Leftist peasants in the third world can achieve to protect their own communal rights. Unfortunately, the EZLN lacks the means right now of spreading their movement outside of the rural area in which they inhabit. Past attempts to do so ended in failure - such as being driven out of the cities of Chiapas in 1994 or the "Other Campaign" in 2006. It's not an issue of whether or not they are revolutionary enough but of the practical capabilities of their movement.

They also achieved a great deal considering the demoralization of the international socialist Left after the decay and then collapse of the USSR.

[Art Vandelay]

The EZLN, despite my former interest in them and the works of Subcomandante Marcos, are not a revolutionary proletarian movement. They do not have the same end goals as communists and anarchists (they do not seek to overthrow the Mexican state; they lack the means to as well) and are merely fighting for the rights of the indigenous peasants of Chiapas. While they should be supported and I commend them for their struggle and success. They are not a revolutionary movement that will lead to the surpassing of the capitalist mode of production.

[ind_com]

Not bad, but not revolutionary either.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What are your overall sentiments towards the EZLN movement?

I've just been suprised at how much popular support they apparently still have in Chiapas, as evidenced by some of the recent demonstrations they've held.

[Tim Cornelis]

I've just been suprised at how much popular support they apparently still have in Chiapas, as evidenced by some of the recent demonstrations they've held.

Unlike some, ahum, they do not terrorise the people they purport to represent.

[Asmo]

The EZLN, despite my former interest in them and the works of Subcomandante Marcos, are not a revolutionary proletarian movement. They do not have the same end goals as communists and anarchists (they do not seek to overthrow the Mexican state; they lack the means to as well) and are merely fighting for the rights of the indigenous peasants of Chiapas. While they should be supported and I commend them for their struggle and success. They are not a revolutionary movement that will lead to the surpassing of the capitalist mode of production.
This is what I was going to write. I do have a bit to add though. The EZLN is largely or at least significantly composed of the Left, and could evolve into a revolutionary movement if the people of Chiapas become radicalized enough to realize no Capitalist government will have their best interests at heart. They are an indigenous rights and Feminist organization, and the Left should support them because such things are well within the ideologies of Marxism and Anarchism.

[Art Vandelay]

This is what I was going to write. I do have a bit to add though. The EZLN is largely or at least significantly composed of the Left, and could evolve into a revolutionary movement if the people of Chiapas become radicalized enough to realize no Capitalist government will have their best interests at heart. They are an indigenous rights and Feminist organization, and the Left should support them because such things are well within the ideologies of Marxism and Anarchism.

I think that they are fully aware of the fact that no bourgeois state's have their best interest at heart, they're indigenous and simply want to be left the fuck alone to their own devices (which I think is fair enough). They seem to have managed to create a small pocket which has dropped out of the capitalist system, however to do this requires autarky. I fully support them in their struggles, but this is not and will never be a revolutionary movement.

[Prometeo liberado]

Unlike some, ahum, they do not terrorize the people they purport to represent.

All depends on who you want to listen to. The evengelical converts of the peasantry would say different.

[ellipsis]

Support.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The EZLN, despite my former interest in them and the works of Subcomandante Marcos, are not a revolutionary proletarian movement. They do not have the same end goals as communists and anarchists (they do not seek to overthrow the Mexican state; they lack the means to as well) and are merely fighting for the rights of the indigenous peasants of Chiapas. While they should be supported and I commend them for their struggle and success. They are not a revolutionary movement that will lead to the surpassing of the capitalist mode of production.

We've talked about this before, and while I think you're right that they lack the means, I think that the overthrow of the Mexican state was one of their ideological goals. As a movement they abandoned it for practical reasons with their offensive defeats.

I agree that they are not a proletarian movement, but they would be useful allies in any Proletarian movement in Mexico. I think Mexico (among other Latin American countries) is unlike the US and Europe because there is both a large peasant and working class, these two classes have similar interests, and there is a lot of osmosis between the two (workers are peasants who can't farm and often have family members who are peasants). I don't think the analysis that peasants have different class interests from workers holds up in Mexico, either in the short or long term (in part this is because many peasant communities still have communal aspects in their production, like collective ownership of the land, and this is something under constant attack from the bourgeois government).

The issue with the EZLN isn't that they don't want to overthrow the state, but as a movement constituted largely by indigenous peasant farmers they lack the means to organize the rest of the country.

Anyways, I think it's a very interesting discussion, because it has a lot to do with the revolutionary potential of the peasants, the material conditions that limit that potential, and whether or not a class-conscious peasantry can be a useful or even decisive force in an ultimate revolution.

[Os Cangaceiros]

All depends on who you want to listen to. The evengelical converts of the peasantry would say different.

Like what has EZLN done against religious campesinos? Something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acteal_massacre)? If so I've never read about it.

[homegrown terror]

i think the EZLN has taken the mantra "think globally, act locally" to its logical end: they've seen the change that needs to happen worldwide, and applied it to their own region the best they can. in today's overly capitalised world, achieving communal autonomy, even on a small local scale, is highly admirable.

[Narodnik]

What kind of economy do the Zapatista communities have?

[Tim Cornelis]

What kind of economy do the Zapatista communities have?

Peasant coffee cooperatives, this seems to be the only means of subsistence. If you're European you can probably buy "Zapatista coffee" in some local leftist café.

[Narodnik]

So, there is no capitalist or menagerial class above the workers, but worker control over production?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It seems that there is no "Capitalist class" within the EZLN controlled areas (aside from perhaps some petit bourgeois selling Marcos photographs and Mayan handicrafts to tourists.)

Most of the economy is agricultural, and related to subsistence, actually, not coffee. The coffee cooperatives, as far as I understand, are not the basis of their economy but a cooperative enterprise designed to help bring some minimal amount of capital into their communities (they have no means to produce generators, medicine, schoolbooks or guns so obviously must purchase these on the market)

[Red Commissar]

The EZLN is pretty good. I mean yeah they aren't some revolutionary organization but they've provided an example for other indigenous groups in the region how to struggle for their rights. Plus it helps that the movement is more organically tied to their base, as opposed to coming from the outside and trying to recruit them.

[human strike]

Ah, the classic, "not revolutionary enough" critique. Whilst being true, saying it doesn't really mean anything.

[Narodnik]

aside from perhaps some petit bourgeois
I don't see "petit bourgeois" as capitalist, but as just workers who own their means of production.

IMO, the there are three steps towards communism- worker (direct) control of production, worker (direct) control of politics, and coordination replacing competition. It seem the Zapatistas established the first two steps, so I'd say they're pretty revolutionary.

[Crabbensmasher]

Their greatest victory is being able to still garnish popular support today. Whenever there's a struggle, it seems to me there's a balancing act that comes into play: They have to continuously stay relevant while maintaining a positive image.
It's kind of hard to compare the two, considering their completely different movements, but take FARC for example. They have stayed relevant through continuous action, avoiding a fall into obscurity. Unfortunately though, they've almost stuck around "too long", and now they're vilified by a lot of the Columbian populace. I'm not saying that propaganda doesn't have anything to do with it, but they've been fighting for ages without any concrete breakthroughs. Once you've lost popular support, it's all downhill from there. The Zapatistas on the other hand, have stayed completely relevant while following primarily nonviolent ideas since the 90s.

[Art Vandelay]

We've talked about this before, and while I think you're right that they lack the means, I think that the overthrow of the Mexican state was one of their ideological goals. As a movement they abandoned it for practical reasons with their offensive defeats.

Yes we have discussed similar matters in the past and you've helped me become less absolutist in some of my opinions on the peasantry. That being said, I don't think that the overthrow of the Mexican state was ever their end goal (maybe at first it was, with their attacks on varying cities in '94) but Marcos has publically stated that they do not seek to overthrow the Mexican state. Perhaps they just avoid talk of the change in their objectives for propaganda purposes. Ultimately the EZLN has never been a revolutionary organization, nor has it claimed to be; their purpose was to continue on the existence of a specific indigenous populace, which felt its way of life was given a death sentence when NAFTA was implemented.


I agree that they are not a proletarian movement, but they would be useful allies in any Proletarian movement in Mexico.

Of course, don't get me wrong when I make the claim that they are not a revolutionary proletarian movement, they are still highly progressive and undoubtedly would be allies of a genuine revolutionary movement in Mexico.


I think Mexico (among other Latin American countries) is unlike the US and Europe because there is both a large peasant and working class, these two classes have similar interests, and there is a lot of osmosis between the two (workers are peasants who can't farm and often have family members who are peasants).

There is a lot of truth to this. Specifically in Mexico, due to NAFTA having the effect of the Mexican government purchasing large amount of corn from North American companies due to subsidies, which in turn pushes farmers out of business due to the fact that corn is such a large cash crop in Mexico.


I don't think the analysis that peasants have different class interests from workers holds up in Mexico, either in the short or long term (in part this is because many peasant communities still have communal aspects in their production, like collective ownership of the land, and this is something under constant attack from the bourgeois government).

I don't know if I would go that far, or that it is that cut and dry by any means. But there is definitely merit to the idea that in Mexico, the differences in class interests are not as clear cut as the traditional Marxist position would lead one to believe.


The issue with the EZLN isn't that they don't want to overthrow the state, but as a movement constituted largely by indigenous peasant farmers they lack the means to organize the rest of the country.

The issue is that they neither have the means, nor do they seek to do either.


Anyways, I think it's a very interesting discussion, because it has a lot to do with the revolutionary potential of the peasants, the material conditions that limit that potential, and whether or not a class-conscious peasantry can be a useful or even decisive force in an ultimate revolution

The decisive force in any future revolution will be the proletariat. But minus the inference about the peasantry potentially being a decisive force in a revolution, I agree with all the above.

[Prometeo liberado]

Like what has EZLN done against religious campesinos? Something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acteal_massacre)? If so I've never read about it.

I dont have the book with me, I think it's Homage to Chiapis, but the jist of it is is that yes they have been run out of thier churches and in some cases kidnapped or assasinated for crimes against the people. You have to unerstand that these evangelicals are the backbone of the local PRIstas and therefore enemy combatants yet thecapitalist media call it terrorism. Just sayin that if you look hard enough you may find what your looking for.