What does everyone think about the Zapatistas?

[Kaelin]

Hi,

Just wondering what the views of the members of this forum are towards the zapatistas movement in Mexico. Just curious. Myself, I feel inclined to support them, however, I am a pacifist so the fact that they use violence lessens my opinion of them. Discuss?

[bolshevik butcher]

Well you might feel glad to know that they seem to have sold out on revolution latley and given into 'peaceful methods', ie just joining mexican politics. They hadnt really use dviolence for a long time anyway, because they'd been on ceasefire for about 10yrs.

I support them, just out of interest why exactly are you a pacifist?

[Kaelin]

Basically bcos I feel that there is nothing to be gained by violoent means (though I adnmit I have felt the need to go and fight for what I belive in) and I belive that violence towards anything is wrong. I believe in nature and u cud say I'm a nature worshipper (Pagan/nature-worshipper call me what thou wilt) and as a result of my religous beliefs they influence my pacifism as well.

[bolshevik butcher]

Ok, well i respect your opinion, personally im more of using whatever tactics better at the time. I dont have a pacafists out look but i dont have a fetish for violence.

But what do you think of say the the Russian reovlution? I mean revolutions are often violent, usually at some stage down the line it will come down to armed people fighting for the beugoirse or the workers.

Engles put it well, 'The state can be reduced to armed bodies of men defending private prperty.'

[BuyOurEverything]

Actually, I know someone who's doing alot of translating for them, you can read all their comuniques and letters at her site here (http://zaptranslations.blogspot.com/). Might give you a bit of an idea about them.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 19 2005, 08:55 PM
Well you might feel glad to know that they seem to have sold out on revolution latley and given into 'peaceful methods', ie just joining mexican politics. They hadnt really use dviolence for a long time anyway, because they'd been on ceasefire for about 10yrs.

I support them, just out of interest why exactly are you a pacifist?
bullshit
there is no sellout
read the sixth declaration
All they are doing is branching out to other leftist groups, not running for president. They believe power is something which has to be in the hands of the people.

the zapatistas are awesome.

[bolshevik butcher]

Ok, do you have a link, the articles i read said they'd given up the armed struggle.

[JC1]

Ye, buddy, there dumping arm's and giving up.

BTW, I suppourted them in there early stage, but after that they were sorta reformist. And I alway's recognizied they were just looking for a bourgoise reveloution anyway's.

[rioters bloc]

i was intensely supportive of the zapatista movement before, but of late i've been a little disappointed.

i don't advocate violence, but i'm not a pacifist. i see violence as being a last resort but one that often works.

i want to go to chiapas sometime soon, hopefully around 2007 :D

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

They were from the outset nothing more than a reformist outfit; though this was due more to their leadership and its outlook than any flaws in the rank and file. They only took up armed struggle for a very short time and used it as a barganing token more than anything.

Their recent capitulation into bourgeois politics was to be expected I believe; it was just a matter of time.

The zapatistas have demonstrated more than anything the need for the emergence of genuine revolutionaries.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:10 PM
They were from the outset nothing more than a reformist outfit; though this was due more to their leadership and its outlook than any flaws in the rank and file. They only took up armed struggle for a very short time and used it as a barganing token more than anything.
I wouldn't say from the outset. Their initial plan was to fight all the way to Mexico City and seize power with the help of others taking up arms (which didn't materialize, for the most part). They descended from a small cadre of Marxist guerrillas and definitely had that influence. However, they quickly adapted to conditions around them. Playing off the racism against the indigenous and the 500 years of oppression gained them support and turning it into a purely anti-dictatorial pro-indigenous movement was a good move in that sense.

To lambast them for not sticking to the armed struggle is absurd. A couple thousand dead indigenous people would not advance any cause.

The PRI needed to be challenged and the Zapatistas stepped up to bring them down. Their current main focus, though, is the indigenous in Chiapas and perhaps all around the country and they want to get them basic things like education, land, healthcare. The demands zapatismo has always made.

They haven't shifted so much to bourgeois politics as bourgeois politics have shifted to them. Like it or not, they need the support of the bourgeois to stay afloat and I don't think them playing into that is problematic, their demands have merit.

Of course, they haven't totally bought in anyway. Marcos routinely criticizes and insults Mexican political parties and figures, even those who side with the Zapatistas.

In any case, don't discount them too quickly. Mexican politics is a murky business and those who play the bourgeois liberal card may just be slowly moving public opinion to fit their needs. Remember the PLM and Magon?

[Guerrilla22]

They may be reforist, but at least they are active, which is a lot more than most leftist groups can say.

[Tekun]

Yep, despite their recent decisions to put down their arms, I support what they have and are doing

They just might change things if they come to power in Mexico's upcoming elections (maybe not this one, but the next one) ;)

I believe in taking up arms for tha people and the struggle, and I think that Subcomandante Marcos has led the Zapatistas in the right direction

Although, they&#39;ve strayed from the idea of a revolution in Mexico, they&#39;re still very dedicated to the struggle of the indigenous ppl and to the uplift of the poor <~something I truly admire


Yeah going to Chiapas would be an amazing experience
Just being in the company of the indigenous ppl and Marcos is awsome
I might just stop there next time I travel to my homeland (Guatemala)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

1. They never had the power, or even close to it, to "march all the way to Mexico city," something they never tried to hide. As I said, the original armed conflict was meant only as a barganing chip, so then, they can correctly be described as "reformist from the outset".

2. Bourgeois elections won&#39;t eleviate the suffering of the workers, farmers, and other oppressed people. Only a revolution can overthrow the system that creates, maintains, and perpetuates it.

[bolshevik butcher]

Well, while there is certianly some truth in that, to dney that reforms are never positive is also a lie.

Now also, look at venezuela, where they do seem to be ehading towards socilaism. On the otherhand i still think armed reovlution would be a far better strategy.

[Enragé]

http://www.zaptranslations.blogspot.com/

go down the page to the Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona. And read all three parts of it, especially the second it was i think.

They are not selling out, and the Zapatista Army remains ON STANDBY ,to defend the autonomous municipalities, as they have been for the most of the past 10 yrs.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 20 2005, 10:54 AM
armed reovlution would be a far better strategy.


you got a gun fetish?

revolutions dont have to be all that violent

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Oct 20 2005, 04:11 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Oct 20 2005, 04:11 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 20 2005, 10:54 AM
armed reovlution would be a far better strategy.


you got a gun fetish?

revolutions dont have to be all that violent [/b]
Revolutions are bloody. I&#39;m hard pressed to think of one that wasn&#39;t.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The rulling class won&#39;t give up its positions of power without a life or death struggle; this has been prove n by history.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Oct 20 2005, 04:11 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Oct 20 2005, 04:11 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 20 2005, 10:54 AM
armed reovlution would be a far better strategy.


you got a gun fetish?

revolutions dont have to be all that violent [/b]
Ha ha, sorry i think i mistyped my views there. Right, i just think the zapitstas should keep hold of there weapons, you know, they got where they are with guns and i dont see why they should give up now.

Also, mexican politics is hardly free of corruption, fox is basically a U&#036; planted dictator.

[bcbm]

1. They never had the power, or even close to it, to "march all the way to Mexico city," something they never tried to hide. As I said, the original armed conflict was meant only as a barganing chip, so then, they can correctly be described as "reformist from the outset".

Strange they would give that as their mission in the declaration of war then. I suspect they expected more support to materialize (which the declaration also would suggest) and when they ran in to resistance, they quickly learned they didn&#39;t have that sort of strength and back-tracked a bit on their position.

As for being reformist, perhaps. It is difficult to say. Like I said, Mexican politics is a murky business and what is presented on the surface is not always the true intent. The Zapatistas surely remember Magon, so don&#39;t discount them too quickly.

And, of course, struggling for justice for the indigenous and against dictatorship is still a worthy cause.


2. Bourgeois elections won&#39;t eleviate the suffering of the workers, farmers, and other oppressed people. Only a revolution can overthrow the system that creates, maintains, and perpetuates it.

And the Zapatista strategy has never been purely, or even primarily, electoral.


Ha ha, sorry i think i mistyped my views there. Right, i just think the zapitstas should keep hold of there weapons, you know, they got where they are with guns and i dont see why they should give up now.

Are you delusional? The Zapatistas&#39; guns may have helped them gain attention but in a military battle with the Mexican Army, they would be crushed. The Mexican State would no doubt prefer that, as having them around has been fairly troublesome.

[bolshevik butcher]

Are you delusional? The Zapatistas&#39; guns may have helped them gain attention but in a military battle with the Mexican Army, they would be crushed. The Mexican State would no doubt prefer that, as having them around has been fairly troublesome.

Yeh, they need to hang onto the weapons though, they&#39;ll be even mroe defencless without them. Anyway, what about the massess in emxico, would they stand idely by and watch as the Zapitztas were mercielssly butchered.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 21 2005, 04:52 AM
Yeh, they need to hang onto the weapons though, they&#39;ll be even mroe defencless without them. Anyway, what about the massess in emxico, would they stand idely by and watch as the Zapitztas were mercielssly butchered.
I haven&#39;t heard anything about them disarming, but they certainly aren&#39;t going to resume combat operations. It was "the masses" in Mexico that stopped them from being butchered the first time and that was because they put aside the gun.

[The Grey Blur]

Read below.

[The Grey Blur]

This is now an address to every Revleft member;

When the Zapatistas decommisioned you attack them as cowards and reformists, when the IRA decommisioned you label them sell-outs and right-wing - do you idiots have any idea of the suffering that went on in these countries? Do you understand the amount of hatred and pain? When sons are dying in fathers arms, when the governments are accusing freedom fighters of terrorism, when brave souls lay down their lives in defense of their communities, you insult them with these petty quibbles about policy? Remember the reason we are socialists - to secure a better life for the opressed;
So don&#39;t label people as reformists for adapting Marxism or class-struggle to their needs, don&#39;t label movements as beurgeois for entering into goverment at the behest of their people, don&#39;t label people as cowards for not dying in vain and for not staining their land with more blood - and certainly don&#39;t look down your noses at people who have suffered more losses yet won more ground for the workers and for the people than you ever will in your entire life.

At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.
— Che Guevara

[bcbm]

:wub:

Well put.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:11 PM

Clenched [email protected] 20 2005, 10:54 AM
armed reovlution would be a far better strategy.


you got a gun fetish?

revolutions dont have to be all that violent
Revolutions are bloody. I&#39;m hard pressed to think of one that wasn&#39;t. [/b]
Orange Revolution in Ukraïnia (or however it&#39;s written in English) by Viktor Joestsjenko

[bolshevik butcher]

Well we&#39;ve all seen what&#39;s come of that. He sacked the entire cabnet last week, Ukraine&#39;s still a gangsters paradise as well.

While i see what your saying for a real workers revoltion to succeed the workers must at least be armed at some point. For instance in venezuela, while they took power through peaceful elections they had to get chavez back during a coup, through force. And now they are starting to train malitias, incase reacitonary elements in the army or U&#036; imperialiam tries again.

[Kaelin]

I agree with Rage Against the Machine&#39;s point: I cannot speak much about mexico, but I have seen the devastation in ireland and the IRA disarming (at least to an extent anyway) is seen as a step towards a more positive future. Those people who think that the IRA are sell-outs must realise that by disarming they are making Ireland a safer place. If you had seen the mass killings that have, and to an extent still are, going on in ireland I think you would not be so violent. If you want to use violence strictly so you can bring your particular brand of left-wing politics to the unenlightened people of the govt. or other significant body then I think you have no place on this board. Violence only breeds more violence and pain and turmoil.

[bcbm]

Those people who think that the IRA are sell-outs must realise that by disarming they are making Ireland a safer place. If you had seen the mass killings that have, and to an extent still are, going on in ireland I think you would not be so violent.

Disarming entirely is stupid, though I believe they have kept some arms for defense. Nationalists being completely unarmed was what allowed pogroms to occur in the past. Those are the mass killings I&#39;m worried about, not IRA bombs that primarily kill British soldiers. Yes, I know there have been civillian casualties.

edit: That sounded a bit more dogmatic than I wanted it to. I think moving the peace process is a good thing and the disarmament is good insomuch as it makes loyalists look like the scum they truly are and helps push forward a free Ireland. But I&#39;m glad some groups are holding on to their guns, just because of the history.

[Santos]

The Zapatistas should be applauded and respected for their struggle. They are only fighting for what they believe in is right and what they deserve, not only as Mexicans, but as human beings. Maybe they believe peaceful methods are another way of attaining their goals right now rather than violence. In any case, I wish them strength for their long struggle. Hasta la victioria.

[chebol]

The Zapatistas have to be viewed as a product of their time. The were created out of the retreat of the marxist left in mexico in the post-soviet period. Marxism seemed to have failed- other theories, or lack thereof, appeared more promising. The anti-globalisation movement was rising.
And the cultural and social separatedness of their main support base- the indigenous- reinforced their strategy- to create a space for dialogue within civil society, within which progressive views and social justice could be espoused.

They failed, despite the international support of the &#39;left liberal&#39; milieu and coffee-shop socialists.

They failed, not immediately, but because their strategy, when played out, was wrong. They weren&#39;t fighting for state power- and when you do this, and the state is out to get you, you tend to lose.
To me, the turning point was after the slaughter at Acteal. The Zapatistas choked. They weren&#39;t ready to carry the whole thing through, to fight for power, and they underestimated the willingness (the shrewdness) of the government to negotiate.

Since then, the Zapatistas have been very much restricted to the Lacandon forest. Their guns are no use, because they aren&#39;t using them. They carry little weight.

The whole point of the recent change in direction is a recognition that they need to go on the offensive- to take the initiative.

One thing that has been proved is that taking state power is more effective and useful than not taking it. Look at Cuba. Look at Venezuela. The example Venezuela sets for latin america is not easily overestimated. Not because of the electoral nature, but because Chavez, when let out of prison, was asked what he would do. He said "Go to power". And he did, and the results can be seen.

The idea that you can create &#39;dialogue&#39; between capitalism and &#39;civil society&#39; is doomed to failure, because capitalism always pulls out the dirty tricks so long as it has the state.

I want to reiterate that I am not condemnng the Zapatistas outright. They reacted to the global mood at the time. That mood was wrong.

Where is the anti-globalisation movement now?
Without a strategy of changing the world, no other world will be possible, and that&#39;s where we were left- until Venezuela.

In Venezuela they have a saying: "Un mundo mejor es posible- si es socialista". A better world is possible- if it&#39;s socialist. And that means collective organisation towards a common goal involving empowering the people. ACTUALLY empowering the people- putting power in their hands. To do that, you&#39;ve got to TAKE it out of somebody else&#39;s hands.

The EZLN are beginning to learn this lesson.

[Seeker]

"Everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves."

Including power.

If I could speak Spanish, I&#39;d spend the winter with them. :wub:

[h&s]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 22 2005, 11:10 AM
While i see what your saying for a real workers revoltion to succeed the workers must at least be armed at some point. For instance in venezuela, while they took power through peaceful elections they had to get chavez back during a coup, through force. And now they are starting to train malitias, incase reacitonary elements in the army or U&#036; imperialiam tries again.
But that is not a revolution (yet) - the ruling class has not been changed and capital still dominates the country.
The militias are there for when (if?) the actual revolution happens, as the forces of the capitalists will always use violence against working class power.

[Deutsche Ideologie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:00 PM
Basically bcos I feel that there is nothing to be gained by violoent means (though I adnmit I have felt the need to go and fight for what I belive in) and I belive that violence towards anything is wrong. I believe in nature and u cud say I&#39;m a nature worshipper (Pagan/nature-worshipper call me what thou wilt) and as a result of my religous beliefs they influence my pacifism as well.
The oppressor defines the nature of the struggle.

And the Zapatistas are alright.. I&#39;ve heard some negative views on them from Chiapas residents, I really don&#39;t know because I don&#39;t live there.

[violencia.Proletariat]

people on this board keep saying they sold out to politics, etc. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY PARTICIPATE IN MEXICAN POLITICAL PARTIES? the only thing ive read about them and political parties is when they criticize them for not helping anyone.

responding to the point of the thread. i "support them" as i hope they accomplish what they believe but i dont think they are going about it the right way. they need to pick up the armed struggle again. they also need to pick up programs to help make an infrustructure(running water, electricity, etc.) in chiapas not just in the cities. but yes, if they pick up the armed struggle again, im happy to support them fully.

[bcbm]

they need to pick up the armed struggle again.

Why do you want them to destroy their support base and get themselves massacred by the Mexican army? That&#39;s absurd.


they also need to pick up programs to help make an infrustructure(running water, electricity, etc.) in chiapas not just in the cities.

They&#39;ve built some infrastructure since 1994, but its difficult to do those things as they&#39;re not typically arranged with para-government military organizations.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Why do you want them to destroy their support base and get themselves massacred by the Mexican army? That&#39;s absurd.

destroy their base support? are you speaking of the petty leftists in america? who gives a shit if they do. what they are fighting for is not to look squeeky clean and nice for americans, what they are fighting for is liberation. who gives a fuck if they loose support from american college professors, pacifists, etc, for shooting the people that oppress them.

why would they be destroyed by the mexican army? farc, maoists in nepal, etc, they all seem to be able to defend themselves from their governments, why are the zapatistas different? what did zapata say? oh yeah "it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees" so instead of barley living on semi-autonomy they should actually liberate themselves.

i seriously doubt they will loose support of other mexicans that are serious about the struggle. and if they do, then good, its just extra baggage they dont need. they dont need people flaking out on them.



They&#39;ve built some infrastructure since 1994, but its difficult to do those things as they&#39;re not typically arranged with para-government military organizations.

and they are with maoist groups, etc? they do it. so the zapatistas can do, and should do it. because its better for the people.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Deutsche [email protected] 29 2005, 03:49 PM
And the Zapatistas are alright.. I&#39;ve heard some negative views on them from Chiapas residents, I really don&#39;t know because I don&#39;t live there.
i know three people who have lived in chiapas before, and they loved it. but then two of them were only there for 6 months and the other for about 18... so i dunno.

[bcbm]

destroy their base support? are you speaking of the petty leftists in america? who gives a shit if they do. what they are fighting for is not to look squeeky clean and nice for americans, what they are fighting for is liberation. who gives a fuck if they loose support from american college professors, pacifists, etc, for shooting the people that oppress them.

Mexican Civil Society supported them, but primarily because they laid down their arms. They then pressured the government into accepting a cease-fire. This was all that prevented the army from murdering the lot of them in 1994.


why would they be destroyed by the mexican army? farc, maoists in nepal, etc, they all seem to be able to defend themselves from their governments, why are the zapatistas different?

Those groups probably have broader support and better connections than the EZLN, who are not that strong militarily and not that well armed. Furthermore, their entire zone of operations is surrounded by the army, who&#39;ve shown no qualms about killing innocents. Starting up the armed conflict again would be suicide.


what did zapata say? oh yeah "it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees" so instead of barley living on semi-autonomy they should actually liberate themselves.

Actually, Zapata didn&#39;t say that. Regardless, becoming martyrs in a violent showdown with the state might be cool and romantic, but it wouldn&#39;t help anybody. It would actually make conditions worse for the people of Chiapas, as it would finally allow multinationals into the jungle and completely remove the villages.


and they are with maoist groups, etc? they do it. so the zapatistas can do, and should do it. because its better for the people.

Like I said, they&#39;ve been working on it.

[PRC-UTE]

I&#39;ve heard some good things about their organisation&#39;s structure, how it&#39;s more like a direct democracy made up of councils. The people on these councils are supposedly from villages taht have sent fighters. Does anyone know more about this?

[Deutsche Ideologie]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Oct 30 2005, 03:47 PM--> (rioters bloc @ Oct 30 2005, 03:47 PM)
Deutsche [email protected] 29 2005, 03:49 PM
And the Zapatistas are alright.. I&#39;ve heard some negative views on them from Chiapas residents, I really don&#39;t know because I don&#39;t live there.
i know three people who have lived in chiapas before, and they loved it. but then two of them were only there for 6 months and the other for about 18... so i dunno. [/b]
I&#39;m sure they did. They were westerners and rich compared to most Chiapas residents, so I&#39;m sure they had a great time.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Mexican Civil Society supported them, but primarily because they laid down their arms. They then pressured the government into accepting a cease-fire. This was all that prevented the army from murdering the lot of them in 1994.

i am not aware of this group or if it has any desireable influence over the people of mexico



Those groups probably have broader support and better connections than the EZLN, who are not that strong militarily and not that well armed. Furthermore, their entire zone of operations is surrounded by the army, who&#39;ve shown no qualms about killing innocents. Starting up the armed conflict again would be suicide.

i dont think so. the ezln has broad connections. these groups just make it a priority to arm themselves to attack and destroy the state.

i dont think the entire state of chiapas is surrounded by the mexican army. nor does the army have the field advantage since they do not know or command the jungles.


Actually, Zapata didn&#39;t say that. Regardless, becoming martyrs in a violent showdown with the state might be cool and romantic, but it wouldn&#39;t help anybody. It would actually make conditions worse for the people of Chiapas, as it would finally allow multinationals into the jungle and completely remove the villages.

cool and romantic would be to win the world over without a gunshot. and sure the zapatistas have done that, they have won over the petty liberals. but they havent won their struggle.

being free of government harrassment would hurt the people of chiapas? i think not.

again, if the ezln makes it a priority to defend the communities, then they could put up a stiff resistance against state forces.

[chebol]

Actually, Zapata did say that.

[bcbm]

i am not aware of this group or if it has any desireable influence over the people of mexico

Civil society, ie the Mexican people.


i dont think so. the ezln has broad connections. these groups just make it a priority to arm themselves to attack and destroy the state.

i dont think the entire state of chiapas is surrounded by the mexican army. nor does the army have the field advantage since they do not know or command the jungles.

The EZLN knows they&#39;re weak militarily, that&#39;s why they abandoned the armed struggle in the first place and haven&#39;t taken it up since. Furthermore, they have no interest in state power, so an armed struggle for such a thing would be anathema to their goals.


cool and romantic would be to win the world over without a gunshot. and sure the zapatistas have done that, they have won over the petty liberals. but they havent won their struggle.

They&#39;re constantly advancing their struggle. It moves back and forward, but its generally progressing in a positive direction. The recent moves from Marcos in building a left-wing coalition are promising.


being free of government harrassment would hurt the people of chiapas? i think not.

I&#39;m not seeing the correlation between geting massacred and being free of government harassment.


again, if the ezln makes it a priority to defend the communities, then they could put up a stiff resistance against state forces.

I doubt it. They didn&#39;t fair terribly well in previous military engagements, if I recall, and without the support of Mexican society they would be in trouble.


Actually, Zapata did say that.

As I understand it, it was one of his generals or whatever, not him personally.

[violencia.Proletariat]

he EZLN knows they&#39;re weak militarily, that&#39;s why they abandoned the armed struggle in the first place and haven&#39;t taken it up since. Furthermore, they have no interest in state power, so an armed struggle for such a thing would be anathema to their goals.

what do you do when your weak militarily? you work to get stronger&#33;

i never said anything about them seizing state power. i said they should be attacking the state.

what is their goal? because temporary autonomy and still being fucking peasants isnt a very great accomplishment


They&#39;re constantly advancing their struggle. It moves back and forward, but its generally progressing in a positive direction. The recent moves from Marcos in building a left-wing coalition are promising.

looks promising? hmmm all ive heard is their newest communiques that dont really give much detail. it will be promising if its gathering a coalition to attack the state and liberate the people of mexico :)



I&#39;m not seeing the correlation between geting massacred and being free of government harassment.

if they can provide effective military protection, they wont get massacred ;)


I doubt it. They didn&#39;t fair terribly well in previous military engagements, if I recall, and without the support of Mexican society they would be in trouble.

hmm, i heard they shot down a helicopter in 94 when they took over san cristobol. doesnt sound too bad to me.

ive heard first hand accounts of the jungles in chiapas and how difficult and rough they are. the person who had been there told me a story about how an indigenous person was watching him as he was hiking up a trail, he only knew it when the person stepped onto the trail, when they stepped back they disappered. sounds like a good advantage for the ezln, they can act effectivlly like a guerilla army if they control of the jungles.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 06:59 PM
I&#39;ve heard some good things about their organisation&#39;s structure, how it&#39;s more like a direct democracy made up of councils. The people on these councils are supposedly from villages taht have sent fighters. Does anyone know more about this?
Excerpts: The Reading of a Video (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33095)

This is a link to an old thread of mine which has passages from an August 2004 EZLN communique. There is a link within the link, and passages with information on the Good Government Juntas and Autonomous Councils are included in the the thread.

[Scars]

I admire the Zapatistas for standing up against the Mexican government and the bourgeoise in general, however my main criticism is that they have not gone far enough. I think that it&#39;s sad that their revolution hasn&#39;t spread to other parts of Mexico (or anywhere, honestly). I also think that they are interesting from the point of view that they are a autonomous, mass movement- somthing that is rarely seen.

As for the issue of armed revolution, an armed revolution is necessary in order to completely sweep away the bourgeoise. However the Zapatistas are fairly secure in their position at the moment, as since they are not attempting to expand their revolution to other areas of Mexico or the world actively attacking the government isn&#39;t really needed. As far as I can see they&#39;re not pacifists and they are not afraid of taking up arms if needs be, but at the moment they do not see taking such an action as necessary. If the government attempts to destroy them I believe that they will take up armed struggle against the government once more, but they are not rushing to initiate armed confontation.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist+Oct 20 2005, 06:42 PM--> (Clenched Fist &#064; Oct 20 2005, 06:42 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:11 PM

Clenched [email protected] 20 2005, 10:54 AM
armed reovlution would be a far better strategy.


you got a gun fetish?

revolutions dont have to be all that violent
Ha ha, sorry i think i mistyped my views there. Right, i just think the zapitstas should keep hold of there weapons, you know, they got where they are with guns and i dont see why they should give up now.

Also, mexican politics is hardly free of corruption, fox is basically a U&#036; planted dictator. [/b]
i agree with you there


I doubt it. They didn&#39;t fair terribly well in previous military engagements, if I recall, and without the support of Mexican society they would be in trouble.

which is where their strength lies. You cannot win a revolution through the barrel of a gun, you need popular support...and some bullets perhaps to take out the remainder of the bourgeois army, but popular support first and foremost.



Revolutions are bloody. I&#39;m hard pressed to think of one that wasn&#39;t

True, but there&#39;s a big difference between blood flowing down the streets like rivers and firing a few well placed shots here and there...which is all you need if you organise well.