The EZLN are not Marxist

[perception]

They're social democrats at best. They want to topple the Mexican state and replace it with a more representative democracy, and want such things as agrarian reform. But they are far from communists.

There seems to be a misconception among some that they are Marxists.

[perception]

excerpt from a paper I wrote last year for a Latin American Politics seminar:

The Zapatistas are not Marxists, despite their ostensible similarities to Central and South American Fidelista guerilla movements. When asked if he had been influenced by Marx and Lenin, Marcos laughed and replied, “My main influences were Villa, Zapata, Morelos, Hidalgo, Guerrero. My parents taught me a lot about Mexican history; I grew up with these heroes,” (Benjamin, p. 60). He also remarks that he took a lesson from the Cuban Revolution, namely that, “you can’t impose a form of politics on the people because sooner or later you’ll end up doing the same thing that you criticized. You criticize a totalitarian system and then you offer another totalitarian system. You can’t impose a political system by force,” (p. 61). One of the major reforms demanded by the EZLN, and one that should come as no surprise, was agrarian reform. They drafted the Revolutionary Agrarian Reform Law, which called for land redistribution and limits on the size of land holdings (Stephen, p. 152-3). The EZLN also elevated women to equal status of men. New revolutionary laws gave women the right to choose their husband, hold elected office, and be protected against rape and mistreatment (Benjamin, p. 63). But the goal of the EZLN was not reform. In the “Second Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle,” Marcos makes this point very clear. “By suicide or execution, the death of the current Mexican political system is a necessary, although not sufficient, pre-condition for the transition to democracy in our country. There will be no real solutions in Chiapas until the situation in Mexico as a whole is resolved,” (Ponce de Leon, p. 46). Marcos expresses his disdain for the Mexican state, which he views as dominated by the PRI and unresponsive to the needs of the poor. The revolution, he claims, “…will end in a free and democratic space for political struggle born above the fetid cadaver of the state-party system… In this new political relationship, different political proposals (socialism, capitalism, social democracy, liberalism, Christian democracy, and so on) will have to convince a majority of the nation that their proposal is best for the country,” (p. 46). Finally, Marcos calls for a National Democratic Convention to appoint a transitional government and draft a new constitution, and to establish a truly democratic state.
There are two other points of interest about Zapatismo that deserve mention. First, the Zapatista revolt is a revolution, but it is not a Revolution. The Zapatistas do not aspire to win state power. In fact, as John Holloway notes, “… at the beginning of 1996, when the Zapatistas launched the formation of the Zapatista Front on National Liberation (FZLN)…(they) made the rejection of all ambition to hold state office a condition of membership,” (Holloway, p. 175). The goal of the EZLN is to clear the way for democracy, regardless of whom the people choose to govern them (provided they do so legitimately). Secondly, although the movement appears to be of an ethnic nationalist nature, it is not. Although they do call themselves an “Army of National Liberation,” Peter Rosset notes, “If this is an ethnic rebellion, and indeed the vast majority of the fighters barely speak Spanish, why do their press releases contain no statements of ethnic nationalism?” (p. 165) The Zapatista communiqués instead issue a call to the poor and dispossessed of all ethnicities to rise up against oppression. John Holloway argues that, “In the context of the uprising, the term ‘national liberation’ has more a sense of moving outwards than of moving inwards: ‘national’ in the sense of ‘not just Chiapanecan’ or ‘not just indigenous’, rather than ‘national’ in the sense of ‘not foreign’,” (p. 167).

[roman]

There is nothing revolutionary about the EZLN. At the key point in the mid 90s, they shifted rightward with the CNI, shafted other mexican revolutionary groups, and placed all their cards on the hope of Cardenas' PRD victory. They shifted way to the right to get in good with the social dem liberals. Well, Cardenas lost and the (2nd) CNI and EZLN lost alot of credibility. See where opprotunism and reformism get you?

Had the EZLN and CNI accepted the calls for unity from other revolutionaries like the PDRP and the FACMLN, I think the revolutionary situation in Mexico would be alot more advanced..

Zapatismo is alot of hot air. Almost everything Marcos says is a joke. So are the social democratic scholars who promote them. These kinds of statements are the most laughable:

“In the context of the uprising, the term ‘national liberation’ has more a sense of moving outwards than of moving inwards: ‘national’ in the sense of ‘not just Chiapanecan’ or ‘not just indigenous’, rather than ‘national’ in the sense of ‘not foreign’,” (p. 167).

Considering that the CNI and EZLN have shafted most of the mexican revolutionary left and allied with the PRD liberals, one really wonders what their idea of national liberation and unity is.

Zapatistas don't want state power. They have said as much. Behind the scenes, they would like to see state power in the hands of the PRD. They really are SOCIAL DEMS - at best.

[Lefty]

Social Democrats that want more benefits for workers are o.k. by me. I don't see why everyone is hating on everything they perceive to be "non-revolutionary"- I mean, Jesus Christ, just because it doesn't conform to your specific ideology, doesn't mean it won't help out the proletariat. In my opinion, it's better if the EZLN isn't hardcore Marxist- that means it will have more popular support, and they are still fighting against the oppressive Mexican state. I don't see what the problem is- I don't mind if they aren't Marxist as long as they help the people.

[perception]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:36 PM
Social Democrats that want more benefits for workers are o.k. by me. I don't see why everyone is hating on everything they perceive to be "non-revolutionary"- I mean, Jesus Christ, just because it doesn't conform to your specific ideology, doesn't mean it won't help out the proletariat. In my opinion, it's better if the EZLN isn't hardcore Marxist- that means it will have more popular support, and they are still fighting against the oppressive Mexican state. I don't see what the problem is- I don't mind if they aren't Marxist as long as they help the people.
yeah I agree, I still support them. I have just noticed some individuals on here stating or implying that they were revolutionary Marxists.

[socialistfuture]

I support the Zapatista movement, it does not have to be marxist to gain my support.

The fact that they do not want to run Mexico and openly admit is good. The state os Mexico is corrupt and is America's lapdog, as long as that remains there can be no peace for the Zapatista movement.

It is up to Mexicon revolutionaries to prove themselves, as the Zapatistas have and earn the peoples trust and support. Only with the support of the people can any long-lasting change happen.

I like reading what Marcos says and seeing photos of the Zapatistas. I hope their courage inspires the world. As Zapata said: ''I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees"


Destroy neo-liberal imperialism! Yankee troops out of latin america!!!

[Dio]

The NZLN, I believe, are revolting correctly based on the condition theyre in. First thing they did is grab a gun and scare the government, then try to take on the system by passive means. But that doesent always work when theres a third party involved, especially when that third party is U.S.

Isnt the president of Mexico the former CEO of Coca Cola, Vincetti Fox?

[RED CHARO]

The EZLN's leadership all come from Marxist backgrounds...... Also I don't know if you people know this, but nether the El Salvadors FMLN or the Sandenistas (at first) considered them selves Marxist (among others), leading a traditon in Latin America , going back to the Mexican revolution. Where the intrestes of the oppresed comes first and interwinded with Socialist Ideologys!
The Zapatistas have built self sufficent communes in Chiapas, with help from the lefty alighned supporters from around Mexico.
Also the PRD won the election before Fox's rise to power, but a misterious 'computer breakdown' robbed them of there victory. The PRDs failure to curb street crime in Mexico city lost them the support of many (along with there coruption), but many failed to see there social projects and employment opportunites they built for the poor (my family benefiting from that greatly)......... in any case the Zapatistas are no longer alighned with the PRD!
The Zapatistas didn't want to gain control by force, but did guide Mexico into democracy and also there where many guerrilla groups in various parts of Mexico ready to take up arms agains the U.S lackeys the PRI!
They follow in Zapatas steps by demanding are real change for the Mexican people.

[Louis Pio]

The Zapatistas have built self sufficent communes in Chiapas, with help from the lefty alighned supporters from around Mexico.


It's not really selfsufficient.
The problem with the zapatistas IMO is that they no longer want to break with capitalism but instead work with the government now. They have of course been forced to that because their armed struggle failed.
They have no influence among the very big mexican working class

[dark fairy]

Whatever approach you take at this is fine i guess but the only thing i can say is that they did do something good for the workers...and that doesn't need to come from marxist backgrounds to be something good :unsure:

[Louis Pio]

Whatever approach you take at this is fine i guess but the only thing i can say is that they did do something good for the workers...and that doesn't need to come from marxist backgrounds to be something good

Yes, but the problem is that they gave people the illusion they would fight untill their problems were solved. Now they are just a part of the state.

[perception]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 12:10 PM

Whatever approach you take at this is fine i guess but the only thing i can say is that they did do something good for the workers...and that doesn't need to come from marxist backgrounds to be something good

Yes, but the problem is that they gave people the illusion they would fight untill their problems were solved. Now they are just a part of the state.
I wouldn't say they were a part of the state. And they did gain some autonomy for Chiapas I believe.

[Ortega]

The EZLN are not Marxist, or even socialists

Neither am I. It's not a big deal..

[Louis Pio]

I wouldn't say they were a part of the state. And they did gain some autonomy for Chiapas I believe.


Yes but the people of Chiapas is still extremely poor. And their politics is not changing the reasons for this.
People supported them because of their fucked up situation, not because of some useless autonomy.
And in my oppinion it is useless when not changing the reasons for the poverty

[perception]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 02:05 PM

I wouldn't say they were a part of the state. And they did gain some autonomy for Chiapas I believe.


Yes but the people of Chiapas is still extremely poor. And their politics is not changing the reasons for this.
People supported them because of their fucked up situation, not because of some useless autonomy.
And in my oppinion it is useless when not changing the reasons for the poverty
After NAFTA went into effect, if the uprising hadn't occured, most of the poor farmers in Chiapas would've lost their land and been starving by now. It may not have made anything better, but it stopped it from getting worse.

[Yazman]

Originally posted by ¡Ortega!@Apr 29 2004, 03:24 AM

The EZLN are not Marxist, or even socialists

Neither am I. It's not a big deal..
So how the hell did you get into the Commie Club then?