Zapatista future

[Janus]

BBC News

Mexico welcomes Zapatistas' tour

The Zapatista leader wants to be known as "Delegate Zero"
Mexico's government has welcomed a nationwide political tour by the Zapatista rebel movement, saying it will boost the county's democracy.
A spokesman for Mexico's president made the comments as the Zapatistas arrived in the southern city of San Cristobal de las Casas to address local groups.

The Zapatistas' masked leader, Marcos, has pledged to tour all of Mexico's 31 states ahead of presidential elections.

The group will head from San Cristobal into the Yucatan peninsula.

We will listen to people in the places where they work, in the places where they are exploited, where they suffer racism

Marcos
Zapatista leader
A spokesman for Mexican President Vicente Fox said the Zapatistas' decision to launch the so-called Other Campaign showed the group's determination to contribute to political debate within Mexico.

"It is an achievement of Mexican democracy and Mexican democracy guarantees the free expression of these ideas," Ruben Aguilar said.

"In that sense, it is recognised that the Zapatistas intend, through the political route, to make their points of views and ideas known."

'We will listen'

Marcos says he now wants to be known as Delegate Zero instead of using his more familiar military-style title of Subcomandante.

He led the Zapatistas into San Cristobal de las Casas on New Year's Day on his on a motorbike called Light-Shadow.


Thousands of rebels and supporters gathered in San Cristobal, in the Zapatista heartland of Chiapas, on Sunday night.

Marcos addressed crowds ahead of the first day of talks with indigenous groups and non-governmental organisations on Monday.

"We will listen to people in the places where they work, in the places where they are exploited, where they suffer racism," he told supporters.

Although his identity officially remains secret, Mexico's government says it has identified Marcos as a former university lecturer.

Light-Shadow

Twelve years on

The Zapatistas rose to prominence in 1994 when Marcos lead an armed uprising in Chiapas, occupying several towns before retreating into the highlands.

Since then the group has campaigned for greater rights for Mexico's indigenous communities.

The country's central government has granted effective autonomy in several areas of southern Mexico.

Marcos and other Zapatista commanders have vowed that the new campaign will help create a national movement that will "turn Mexico on its head" in an election year.

However, the group has criticised mainstream politicians, and insists it will not campaign for elected office.


So, any thoughts on the future of the Zapatista movement?

[Enragé]

i think they will continue to build up a leftist, anti-capitalist alternative to the current situation.

I see also that the BBC continues its uncompromising doublespeak...calling a subcommandante the leader of the entire movement. Marcos is not the leader, if anything, he's the spokesperson. The "leaders" are the zapatistas themselves, the people who live in their areas etc.

[bolshevik butcher]

Well, it's promising to see this, however what does this alternative include. Is this an attempt to build a two state situation within mexico? I still question their decision not to go with the leftist candidate at the presidential elections.

[celticfire]

It doesn't appear to me that they will survive, atleast in a revolutionary sense. They've already taken "revolution" (taking state power) off their agenda. Now -- really - they're just reformers who flash guns. Don't get me wrong - I support them, and was very excited when they came on the scene -- but we haveto admit they've fizzled out.

[Enragé]

they have always said they did not want to take (state) power, there is nothing new in that. But i dont think they are reformists, what they show in regard to organisation and democracy in the zapatista autonomous areas is very promising, its a form council-democracy, and it very well could be that they will try to establish councils like these throughout the country...which would create a very good situation for a revolution (St. Petersberg Soviet....remember ;) )

[bolshevik butcher]

Why don't they want to take state power. It seems foolish to hope that a situation of duel power can last forever.

[Enragé]

they are autonomists (form of anarchism i believe), they kinda want to like...make their own system and just ignore the state, and kick the state's ass if they try to impose their will on the zapatista's system...

beating the state by ignoring it

[violencia.Proletariat]

i critically support them but i dont see a revolutionary future for them if they give up armed struggle. and i dont expect to see their system applied to all of mexico, it would turn into an agrarian nightmare.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:22 PM
they are autonomists (form of anarchism i believe), they kinda want to like...make their own system and just ignore the state, and kick the state's ass if they try to impose their will on the zapatista's system...

beating the state by ignoring it
I am critical of this stance. Trying to build socialism and ignoring the state seems rather foolhardy to say the least. I do critically support an admire them none the less.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist+Jan 3 2006, 11:49 PM--> (Clenched Fist @ Jan 3 2006, 11:49 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 08:22 PM
they are autonomists (form of anarchism i believe), they kinda want to like...make their own system and just ignore the state, and kick the state's ass if they try to impose their will on the zapatista's system...

beating the state by ignoring it
I am critical of this stance. Trying to build socialism and ignoring the state seems rather foolhardy to say the least. I do critically support an admire them none the less. [/b]
same here mate

[Janus]

The Zapatistas have established a haven within Mexico, a state within a state, if you will. Their innovative use of modern technology has allowed them to gain widespread support which will make any forceful move by the Mexican government difficult without a major uproar. However, I fear that the government may just as well attempt this if the Zapatistas publicly state their desire to overthrow the government.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:24 PM
they are autonomists (form of anarchism i believe), they kinda want to like...make their own system and just ignore the state, and kick the state's ass if they try to impose their will on the zapatista's system...

beating the state by ignoring it
Right, they're an indigeneous movement seeking autonomy in the souther part of Mexico. They are not about overthrowing the Mexican government, however they most certainly would like to see a change in the overall Mexican political system.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2006, 01:30 AM
The Zapatistas have established a haven within Mexico, a state within a state, if you will. Their innovative use of modern technology has allowed them to gain widespread support which will make any forceful move by the Mexican government difficult without a major uproar. However, I fear that the government may just as well attempt this if the Zapatistas publicly state their desire to overthrow the government.
Well I don't see what difference it would make, it's already clear the Mexican government doesnt like them and would use any means to destroy them, why would stating a dessore to overthrow the government change things?

[Janus]

I never said it would change things but the government may become more aggressive in their dealing with the Zapatistas.

[celticfire]

This whole line is very sad. Not wanting to take state power means not really - in any direct way challenging the system - which is the definition of REFORMISM.

God damn! Castro, Mao, Ho (ideology aside for the moment) --- all managed to take state power because REVOLUTION had broad support. This line is cowardly and confuses the people into thinking they can "peacefully" take capitalism and the oppressive Vincente Fox out--! Completely, entirely wrong.

If we were to follow here in the U.S. what would we do? Just take out some base areas, then "leave it alone" from there??! HELL NO! We'd push forward the revoluton - as REVOLUTIONARIES do!

So for the capped letters but this is an irrational line, and its wasting a truck load of revolutionary potential.

[moose boy]

I'd like to suggest this book on the issue of the "state power taking" project:

Change The World Without Taking Power by John Holloway

And this book on the Zapatista uprising:

The War Against Oblivion: The Zapatista Chronicles by John Ross

Both are outstanding books.
____


... Shucks, Im having such a hard time with the posting interface...my first post, what can I say...

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:47 AM
This whole line is very sad. Not wanting to take state power means not really - in any direct way challenging the system - which is the definition of REFORMISM.

God damn! Castro, Mao, Ho (ideology aside for the moment) --- all managed to take state power because REVOLUTION had broad support. This line is cowardly and confuses the people into thinking they can "peacefully" take capitalism and the oppressive Vincente Fox out--! Completely, entirely wrong.

If we were to follow here in the U.S. what would we do? Just take out some base areas, then "leave it alone" from there??! HELL NO! We'd push forward the revoluton - as REVOLUTIONARIES do!

So for the capped letters but this is an irrational line, and its wasting a truck load of revolutionary potential.
They're not trying to take capitalism and Vincente Fox out, they're trying to get the Mexican government to guarantee them a certain amount of self determination, similar to the efforsts of other indigeneous movements around the world, you can't compare the EZLN to revolutionary movements, its like comparing apples and oranges.

[bolshevik butcher]

Surley if they trued for revolution though the would have broad support from the Mexican masses, I can't help but feel this is yet another oppertunity wasted.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Jan 5 2006, 11:44 AM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Jan 5 2006, 11:44 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 04:47 AM
This whole line is very sad. Not wanting to take state power means not really - in any direct way challenging the system - which is the definition of REFORMISM.

God damn! Castro, Mao, Ho (ideology aside for the moment) --- all managed to take state power because REVOLUTION had broad support. This line is cowardly and confuses the people into thinking they can "peacefully" take capitalism and the oppressive Vincente Fox out--! Completely, entirely wrong.

If we were to follow here in the U.S. what would we do? Just take out some base areas, then "leave it alone" from there??! HELL NO! We'd push forward the revoluton - as REVOLUTIONARIES do!

So for the capped letters but this is an irrational line, and its wasting a truck load of revolutionary potential.
They're not trying to take capitalism and Vincente Fox out, they're trying to get the Mexican government to guarantee them a certain amount of self determination, similar to the efforsts of other indigeneous movements around the world, you can't compare the EZLN to revolutionary movements, its like comparing apples and oranges. [/b]
no i dont think so. The EZLN is becoming more and more nationally, even internationally, orientated. Not to mention Marcos is not native to chiaps, he used to be a doctor in some city, so i dont think the EZLN is concentrated solely on where they come from...if they were why would the be setting up "la otra" of whatever its called.



and not wanting to take state power is something anarchist (autonomist), not reformist <_<
Reformists want to take state power too...TO REFORM SHIT.
duhh

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Jan 5 2006, 04:43 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier &#064; Jan 5 2006, 04:43 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:44 AM

[email protected] 5 2006, 04:47 AM
This whole line is very sad. Not wanting to take state power means not really - in any direct way challenging the system - which is the definition of REFORMISM.

God damn&#33; Castro, Mao, Ho (ideology aside for the moment) --- all managed to take state power because REVOLUTION had broad support. This line is cowardly and confuses the people into thinking they can "peacefully" take capitalism and the oppressive Vincente Fox out--&#33; Completely, entirely wrong.

If we were to follow here in the U.S. what would we do? Just take out some base areas, then "leave it alone" from there??&#33; HELL NO&#33; We&#39;d push forward the revoluton - as REVOLUTIONARIES do&#33;

So for the capped letters but this is an irrational line, and its wasting a truck load of revolutionary potential.
They&#39;re not trying to take capitalism and Vincente Fox out, they&#39;re trying to get the Mexican government to guarantee them a certain amount of self determination, similar to the efforsts of other indigeneous movements around the world, you can&#39;t compare the EZLN to revolutionary movements, its like comparing apples and oranges.
no i dont think so. The EZLN is becoming more and more nationally, even internationally, orientated. Not to mention Marcos is not native to chiaps, he used to be a doctor in some city, so i dont think the EZLN is concentrated solely on where they come from...if they were why would the be setting up "la otra" of whatever its called.



and not wanting to take state power is something anarchist (autonomist), not reformist <_<
Reformists want to take state power too...TO REFORM SHIT.
duhh [/b]
Yes and the EZLN is a MAYAN movement, their goal is to preserve their way of life and to gain a certain amount of self determination at the same time, true their area of operations includes other parts of Mexico, but they are largely concentrated in the south. Also, the EZLN is more than Marcos, some people tend to forget that at times.

[violencia.Proletariat]

no i dont think so. The EZLN is becoming more and more nationally, even internationally, orientated. Not to mention Marcos is not native to chiaps, he used to be a doctor in some city, so i dont think the EZLN is concentrated solely on where they come from...if they were why would the be setting up "la otra" of whatever its called.

The ezln are not revolutionaries anymore. They started their action for mayan indian rights, not for a global left movement. However the reason they started the fight was from effects of capitalism/globalization. This is why we are starting to see them move to the left. Oh and Marcos is thought to be a former philosophy teacher not a doctor, but who really knows.



and not wanting to take state power is something anarchist (autonomist), not reformist <_<
Reformists want to take state power too...TO REFORM SHIT.
duhh

They arent anarchists. They arent trying to "smash the state". It seems they are trying to a dual power which is very idealistic and not practical in my opinion. They gave up being revolutionaries when they gave up fighting the state. They have only gained temporary autonomy and respect of all the bourgeois leftists of America for being peaceful. Reformists want to change the system from within, to participate, or push for changes in the system. A revolutionary wants to abolish the old system and create something new. And some revolutionary idealogies (such as leninism) see taking state power to be the first step to do this,

[Re-visionist 05]

from what i understan, Subcommadante Marcos isnt really one person. Hes more like an icon of the movement, which i&#39;m guessing was incited by a few intellectuals from the area. I havnt heard much recently about the EZLN, except that as far as military efforts go they are throwing in the towel. The indiginous people of Mexico need to re-cordinate their efforts, and as soon as possible, Mexicos gone to hell in the last two years from what know

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Jan 5 2006, 05:29 PM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Jan 5 2006, 05:29 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:44 AM

[email protected] 5 2006, 04:47 AM
This whole line is very sad. Not wanting to take state power means not really - in any direct way challenging the system - which is the definition of REFORMISM.

God damn&#33; Castro, Mao, Ho (ideology aside for the moment) --- all managed to take state power because REVOLUTION had broad support. This line is cowardly and confuses the people into thinking they can "peacefully" take capitalism and the oppressive Vincente Fox out--&#33; Completely, entirely wrong.

If we were to follow here in the U.S. what would we do? Just take out some base areas, then "leave it alone" from there??&#33; HELL NO&#33; We&#39;d push forward the revoluton - as REVOLUTIONARIES do&#33;

So for the capped letters but this is an irrational line, and its wasting a truck load of revolutionary potential.
They&#39;re not trying to take capitalism and Vincente Fox out, they&#39;re trying to get the Mexican government to guarantee them a certain amount of self determination, similar to the efforsts of other indigeneous movements around the world, you can&#39;t compare the EZLN to revolutionary movements, its like comparing apples and oranges.
no i dont think so. The EZLN is becoming more and more nationally, even internationally, orientated. Not to mention Marcos is not native to chiaps, he used to be a doctor in some city, so i dont think the EZLN is concentrated solely on where they come from...if they were why would the be setting up "la otra" of whatever its called.



and not wanting to take state power is something anarchist (autonomist), not reformist <_<
Reformists want to take state power too...TO REFORM SHIT.
duhh
Yes and the EZLN is a MAYAN movement, their goal is to preserve their way of life and to gain a certain amount of self determination at the same time, true their area of operations includes other parts of Mexico, but they are largely concentrated in the south. Also, the EZLN is more than Marcos, some people tend to forget that at times. [/b]
i know that <_<

point is that marcos is a part of it.

Anyway, just read the EZLN communiques and you can see they are spreading out. They have often stated that they are a movement "to the left and anti-capitalist" and that they see their struggle linked to the struggles of others being screwed over by capitalism.


The ezln are not revolutionaries anymore.

They still are, though peaceful, which i do not see to be a real option for any longer than a period to consolidate the gains they have made and reach out to other parties. Also...what would you have them do? Attack the mexican army? They&#39;d be slaughtered, and everything they fought for would cease to be. Its better to expand your influence peacefully, and then, when the time comes, strike at the heart of the establishment. Or just ignore it alltogether rendering it useless,


They arent anarchists

They are base-democratic and autonomist.


It seems they are trying to a dual power

No, they have often stated that they consider the mexican political system to be corrupted...so what do they do? They create their own. Not to share power, but to make the state unnecessary.
You had soviets in russia before the revolution, what is being built up in mexico (and already exists in chiapas) might just perform a similar role.


Reformists want to change the system from within, to participate, or push for changes in the system.

But this is exactly why they are not reformists, they are not participating. They are not running in the elections, putting forth a candidate to fight the PRI and shit, they are crafting their own system, their own way of making decisions.


A revolutionary wants to abolish the old system and create something new

Which is what i think that they want. They are going about it cautiously, too cautiously perhaps, but maybe thats whats necessary. Just because the mexican capital isnt the scene of bloody fighting between government soldiers and people&#39;s militias doesnt mean its not something revolutionary...and that doesnt mean such a thing isnt something which might happen in the future.


You might even say that the zapatistas are laying the infrastructure for the (hopefully coming) revolution.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Re&#045;visionist [email protected] 5 2006, 11:59 PM
from what i understan, Subcommadante Marcos isnt really one person. Hes more like an icon of the movement, which i&#39;m guessing was incited by a few intellectuals from the area. I havnt heard much recently about the EZLN, except that as far as military efforts go they are throwing in the towel. The indiginous people of Mexico need to re-cordinate their efforts, and as soon as possible, Mexicos gone to hell in the last two years from what know
the zapatista army of national liberation remains under arms and at the disposal of the zapatista areas.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:32 PM




They still are, though peaceful

How are they revolutionary? What they have done in Chiapas could be considered to be so but they arent seeking to protect these gains by seizing state power or trying to seecede from mexico, they just want to reform the constitution without actually making a party which is reformism to me.


Also...what would you have them do? Attack the mexican army? They&#39;d be slaughtered

Yes, and no. Farc hasnt been slaughtered, they have been attacking the Colombian State for 40 years.


and everything they fought for would cease to be.

Which is exactly what will happen when the Mexican Government no longer wants them around. But the zapatistas cant put up a defense since they have given up violence.


They are base-democratic and autonomist.

They are peasants. Anarchism is only realistic in industrialized modern countries. I dont want "agrarian communism" do you? They also do not wish to abolish the state, which is kind of essential in anarchism you know?


ey have often stated that they consider the mexican political system to be corrupted...so what do they do? They create their own. Not to share power, but to make the state unnecessary.

Thats exactly what I ment. A dual power, one will succeed over the other.


soviets in russia before the revolution, what is being built up in mexico (and already exists in chiapas) might just perform a similar role.

If im not mistaken these soviets were made up of workers(i know these existed before industrialization in Russia, but they also didnt last) not farmers. Industrialization is necessary.


But this is exactly why they are not reformists, they are not participating.

Your right they are bad reformists :P . They want a change in the Constitution, thats reformism, they think it will actually help.


You might even say that the zapatistas are laying the infrastructure for the (hopefully coming) revolution.

An anti-imperialist revolution? Hopefully. This might give Mexico the chance to fully establish industrialized capitalism making it possible for real proletarian revolution.

[celticfire]

This kind of reflects a lacking of a lot of different things, including leadership. Lots of past revolutionary struggles have started off incredibly weak, and built up strength - why is there a lack of progress among the ultra-left movements?

It&#39;s something worth evaluating. Mean while, in Nepal...the peasents control 85% of the country.

[Matty_UK]

It&#39;s clear they are revolutionaries to me, but they are also smart. Currently, they are one small stronghold that could easily be destroyed by the Mexican military, and failing that the Americans would certainly assist. So stating an intention to seize state power violently would be a huge error; what they need to do, and this is the first step and the aim of the tour, is to build up an national movement rather than a regional one. They&#39;ve already stated they oppose neoliberalism and recently sent a shipment of several tons of grain to Cuba, if you remember the emails they sent out to us all this summer. I think it&#39;s quite likely they will tour the peasant areas and set up similar government stylings to that of Chiapas; then the peasants will have freedom and self-determination from neo-liberalism and the Mexican government, creating a situation akin to that currently in Nepal where the ruling class are hostage in the cities and have no control outside there. This is clearly a situation required by all peasant revolts prior to the seizing of state power. And this is clearly best achieved by the way they are going about it now, rather than rushing out with guns blazing and getting killed by the Mexican and American military.

The point of the sixth declaration of the selva leconda (sp?) was NOT to say they are abandoning revolution; it was to state that they are going beyond the struggle for indigneous rights and seek to partake in the wider struggle against imperialism and inequality, just using less violent tactics. This means struggle on an international level, and there is no doubt in my mind they have chosen this year to act because it&#39;s clear this year will see a change in south American politics. You just wait; by the end of this year Mexico will be in state of revolution, and pretty much the entire continent will have turned their back on failed extortionate American policies, and wave 2 of the fight against the capitalist status quo will begin.

[Enragé]

How are they revolutionary? What they have done in Chiapas could be considered to be so but they arent seeking to protect these gains by seizing state power or trying to seecede from mexico, they just want to reform the constitution without actually making a party which is reformism to me.

What they are trying to do is to export what they have done in chiapas while trying not to drag the country into a destructive civil war ( at least not just yet).

Where do they see they merely want a change in the constitution???


Farc hasnt been slaughtered

Yea but they havent made any real progress in the last 40 years either. The EZLN is making progress.


They are peasants. Anarchism is only realistic in industrialized modern countries. I dont want "agrarian communism" do you? They also do not wish to abolish the state, which is kind of essential in anarchism you know?

Why not? Why not agrarian communism UNTIL they are able to industrialise on a reasonable pace (meaning not the suicidal industrialization of stalin)?

They have not claimed (yet) to want to abolish the state, but in everything they do they essentially ignore the state, and if everyone ignores the state that would be equal to abolishing the state. (what could the president do if no one listened to him?)

A dual power, one will succeed over the other

Yes and if the zapatista way of doing things, base democratic, succeeds over the state...then say bye bye to vincente fox or whatever the fuck he&#39;s called, including his moronic party and the entire state with it.


If im not mistaken these soviets were made up of workers(i know these existed before industrialization in Russia, but they also didnt last) not farmers. Industrialization is necessary.

It seems to be working pretty damn well in the zapatista areas.


They want a change in the Constitution, thats reformism, they think it will actually help.

Where do they say that? Are you referring to their fight for indigenous rights to be included in the constitution? That was years ago.



in Nepal...the peasents control 85% of the country.

The Maoists are...which isnt exactly the same ;)

[violencia.Proletariat]

What they are trying to do is to export what they have done in chiapas while trying not to drag the country into a destructive civil war ( at least not just yet).

The state must be destroyed to do this. But I have never heard them claim this either. Nor is what they have in Chiapas "revolutionary". Sure its autonomous but they arent industrialized either, therfore its not revolutionary.


Where do they see they merely want a change in the constitution???

Hmm, thats what their whole first uprising was about. They were in talks with the government that broke down. They have not really been clear about what they are doing either, so whats the point of them even acting?


Yea but they havent made any real progress in the last 40 years either. The EZLN is making progress.

They have made more progress than the EZLN has. They can effectivley protect their regions from the Colombian army, the same cant be said for the EZLN since they gave up armed struggle. They also are a clear threat to state power, which the Zapatistas are not.


Why not? Why not agrarian communism UNTIL they are able to industrialise on a reasonable pace (meaning not the suicidal industrialization of stalin)?

If you have agrarian communism how could you industrialize? History seems to show they you need bourgeois revolutions before you can socialize, that is not what they Zapatistas are doing. I have yet to see a country "industrialize" on an autonomous basis either. And about the Stalin comment, all industrialization that has taken place has been "vile". People die, suffer, etc, the leninists just seem to do this much faster and maybe a bit more pleasant.


They have not claimed (yet) to want to abolish the state, but in everything they do they essentially ignore the state, and if everyone ignores the state that would be equal to abolishing the state.

This is the thinking of a lifestylist. Even in countries where there has been duel power, such as China with the nationalist and communist forces, one had to defeat the other before they would just "vanish".


Yes and if the zapatista way of doing things, base democratic, succeeds over the state...then say bye bye to vincente fox or whatever the fuck he&#39;s called, including his moronic party and the entire state with it.

How can you do this without destroying the state? They wont let you have that.


It seems to be working pretty damn well in the zapatista areas.

They also live in huts in the jungle, doesnt sound like my kind of communism

[Rawthentic]

hmm... after reading all these posts on this thread i have come to the conclusion that the EZLN is a movement thats should be supported even though it is not through armed struggle. like prior comrades have said, they could very well be setting the stage for an armed struggle later on but with more widespread support in mexico and in the world due to the strategy they are taking on "listeniing" to the people. People will like (i hope) their autonomous and more just from of living and when the revolution comes, they will have the support necessary to carry the armed struggle out. :blush: just and analysis formed from your posts

[Guerrilla22]

i know that point is that marcos is a part of it.

Yes, my point is he doesn&#39;t control the organization and that the souther part of Mexico is the Maya&#39;s ancestrorial home, which is why they are mainly concerned about securing that area.

[Enragé]

The state must be destroyed to do this

In the end yes, but not right now, they would fail.

Do you long for bloodshed? Do you have a gun-fetish?

The revolution will come, but not now, for it would be suicide to attempt it.



Nor is what they have in Chiapas "revolutionary". Sure its autonomous but they arent industrialized either, therfore its not revolutionary.

What a load of bullshit. Why does industrialisation have ANYTHING to do with the revolutionary-ness (? :P) of ANYTHING?

Sure, orthodox marxist doctrine states there should be industrialisation...but hey this doesnt mean it has to be so. And what is not at the moment could still become so...


Hmm, thats what their whole first uprising was about. They were in talks with the government that broke down. They have not really been clear about what they are doing either, so whats the point of them even acting?

you got it. But that was years ago. As you said, talks broke down. So they are trying a different way now, a more radical, indeed more revolutionary way.

The point? The point is no longer the change of the constitution, its the fundamental change of mexico (why else initiate "La otra"), i dare say even the world in the long run.



They have made more progress than the EZLN has. They can effectivley protect their regions from the Colombian army, the same cant be said for the EZLN since they gave up armed struggle. They also are a clear threat to state power, which the Zapatistas are not.

In 11 years the zapatistas have come from nothing, liberating their areas, making them base democratic, protecting them from paramilitary organisations as well as the federales (which they continue to do now, the EZLN has NOT disbanded, they are still under arms). The Zapatista Movement clearly IS a threat to the government, for they are expanding their influence.

FARC has accomplished in 40 years nothing more than a stalemate, corruption, cocaine trafficking, and seriously dubious tactics. Also..where is the democracy in FARC?


If you have agrarian communism how could you industrialize?

With the help of other industrialized areas (to which the zapatistas are reaching out through their new campaign).


I have yet to see a country "industrialize" on an autonomous basis either

Oh but there&#39;s a first for everything.

Also...where does this fetish for industrialisation come from??? If the zapatista areas&#39; inhabitants are ok with the current situation...well let them be.


This is the thinking of a lifestylist. Even in countries where there has been duel power, such as China with the nationalist and communist forces, one had to defeat the other before they would just "vanish".

No this is the thinking of an autonomist anarchist(admittedly where large groups of lifestylists can be found where i live) , something which i am not. I am merely defending the views of the zapatistas.

I agree, it has flaws...but well...they&#39;ll find that out eventually wont they? And the clash between the systems will come, and all hell will break loose...but untill then, support them in what they do, criticise them where necessary, but support them all the same.


How can you do this without destroying the state? They wont let you have that.

Duhhh
ofcourse.
And it will lead to a confrontation, i am sure of that, but not just yet. Is your lust for blood so great you cant wait a couple years?


They also live in huts in the jungle, doesnt sound like my kind of communism

So? Let all have "their" communism, especially in cases where they cant have "our" (industrialized) communism .

[chaval]

don&#39;t be silly, nothing will come of this, all this means absolutely nothing. this tour is nothing more to boost the governments popularity to make it seem more accepting and democratic. Zapatistas aren&#39;t gonna get anywhere, most likely because as it has been said, they have fizzled out. they remain a symbol of the indigenous struggle but they are not really a legitimate alternative to anything in mexico. a few masked men waving guns and crying the worn-out mexican revolutionary cry doesn&#39;t promise jobs or security; the priority on most people&#39;s minds for the coming elections.
there is already a strong leftist party (PRD) running in the elections led by Lopez Obrador and they probably won&#39;t win. not popular enough.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 02:41 PM

.

In the end yes, but not right now, they would fail.

Do you long for bloodshed? Do you have a gun-fetish?

The revolution will come, but not now, for it would be suicide to attempt it.

I dont think you understand, the Zapatistas cant skip a stage of historical materialism. There will be no "communist" revolution in Mexico until its an advanced capitalist country. The Zapatistas cant bring Mexico to that stage with their current idealogy.


What a load of bullshit. Why does industrialisation have ANYTHING to do with the revolutionary-ness

Because, agrarianism is not the goal. Should people in Mexico have to settle with farming for the rest of their lives?


you got it. But that was years ago. As you said, talks broke down. So they are trying a different way now, a more radical, indeed more revolutionary way.

They are going on a tour, nothing revolutionary about this. Politicians do it all the time.


The point is no longer the change of the constitution, its the fundamental change of mexico (why else initiate "La otra"), i dare say even the world in the long run.

Not gonna happen.


In 11 years the zapatistas have come from nothing, liberating their areas, making them base democratic, protecting them from paramilitary organisations as well as the federales (which they continue to do now, the EZLN has NOT disbanded, they are still under arms). The Zapatista Movement clearly IS a threat to the government, for they are expanding their influence.

They arent a threat. They dont use violence anymore. You act as if everyone Mexico is just going to peacefully resist the state and have communism, it doesnt work like that.


FARC has accomplished in 40 years nothing more than a stalemate, corruption, cocaine trafficking, and seriously dubious tactics. Also..where is the democracy in FARC?

Yes a stalemate. The EZLN hasnt even done that, and I doubt they will. The claims of cocaine trafficing is a weak arguement used by right wingers, try something else. Proof of corruption?

You like the zapatistas because they "play nice". That never seems to work out in the third world.


With the help of other industrialized areas (to which the zapatistas are reaching out through their new campaign).

Ill believe it when I see it :rolleyes:


Oh but there&#39;s a first for everything.

Yes a first that would have come along time ago if it were possible. Or are the Zapatistas the only people who can be libertarians?


Also...where does this fetish for industrialisation come from???

Its necessary for communism dumbass.


If the zapatista areas&#39; inhabitants are ok with the current situation...well let them be.

Yes because everyone in Mexico wants to live in a jungle and farm :rolleyes: Good luck with them getting everyone on their side.


No this is the thinking of an autonomist anarchist(admittedly where large groups of lifestylists can be found where i live) , something which i am not. I am merely defending the views of the zapatistas.

:lol: The Mexican state would have them killed while on tour if they were a threat to state power.


I agree, it has flaws...but well...they&#39;ll find that out eventually wont they?

You cant use an idealogy that works in the first world for the third world.


And it will lead to a confrontation, i am sure of that, but not just yet. Is your lust for blood so great you cant wait a couple years?

You can get stop with the "lust for blood" shit. I am being realistic.



So? Let all have "their" communism, especially in cases where they cant have "our" (industrialized) communism

It&#39;s not communism. Communism requires industrialization. Im not going to support the zapatistas if their "end all" is libertarian farm life. Thats almost reactioanry.

[Enragé]

I dont think you understand, the Zapatistas cant skip a stage of historical materialism. There will be no "communist" revolution in Mexico until its an advanced capitalist country. The Zapatistas cant bring Mexico to that stage with their current idealogy.

why?

Its bullshit to let a people suffer in order to have a capitalist country and THEN have a revolution, just skip to the bloody revolution.


Because, agrarianism is not the goal. Should people in Mexico have to settle with farming for the rest of their lives?

And do you think the zapatistas DONT want to industrialise? Why would they not?

And if the people in mexico want to be farmers the rest of their lives...well...let them.


They are going on a tour, nothing revolutionary about this. Politicians do it all the time.

with the "small" difference that they are proposing the creation of a new system of power, directly opposed to mainstream politics.


Not gonna happen.

well thats a well founded argument


They arent a threat. They dont use violence anymore. You act as if everyone Mexico is just going to peacefully resist the state and have communism, it doesnt work like that.

Ofcourse not, but through peaceful shit they can gain the support of the entire people and then have a revolution.jeez.


You like the zapatistas because they "play nice". That never seems to work out in the third world.

Bullshit. I couldnt give a fuck if they would shoot all landowners who refused to give in to the people&#39;s will. The point is...THEY ARE DEMOCRATIC, in the most pure and fundamental way. FARC is not.


Its necessary for communism dumbass.

ever heard of primitivist communism?


You cant use an idealogy that works in the first world for the third world.

And thats why the zapatistas are creating their own ideology.


It&#39;s not communism. Communism requires industrialization. Im not going to support the zapatistas if their "end all" is libertarian farm life. Thats almost reactioanry.

Who the fuck&#39;s saying that thats their end goal? They&#39;ll industrialise eventually, but in a non-capitalist way.

And WHY would you keep them from having their libertarian farm life? If they want to...why not?

[Enragé]

there is already a strong leftist party (PRD) running in the elections led by Lopez Obrador and they probably won&#39;t win. not popular enough

They&#39;re not popular enough because they dont represent a true alternative. They are in essence the same as the PRI, stooges of the corporate world.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:11 PM





why?

Its bullshit to let a people suffer in order to have a capitalist country and THEN have a revolution, just skip to the bloody revolution.

The russians tried to do this, as did the chinese, it doesnt work. You cant just skip stages of development.


And do you think the zapatistas DONT want to industrialise? Why would they not?

And if the people in mexico want to be farmers the rest of their lives...well...let them.

Yes because everyone in Mexico wants to be a farmer :rolleyes:

Its not that they wouldnt want to industrialize, its that they cant.


with the "small" difference that they are proposing the creation of a new system of power, directly opposed to mainstream politics.

Really, have a communique? I didnt even think they had an outlined plan, or do you just think thats what they are doing?


Ofcourse not, but through peaceful shit they can gain the support of the entire people and then have a revolution.jeez

Meh, everyone is oppossed to violence? Doubt it. They could have easily taken Mexico city(support wise) if that was their original aim.


Bullshit. I couldnt give a fuck if they would shoot all landowners who refused to give in to the people&#39;s will. The point is...THEY ARE DEMOCRATIC, in the most pure and fundamental way. FARC is not.

How is FARC not democratic? Sure they might not use direct democracy, but then again direct democracy can industrialize a nation.


ever heard of primitivist communism?

Well if thats not a step backwards I dont know what is. Should they start running around in loin-cloths too? :lol:


And thats why the zapatistas are creating their own ideology

Not really, nothing they really have done hasnt been thought of before.


Who the fuck&#39;s saying that thats their end goal?

Thats about all that can come of it


They&#39;ll industrialise eventually, but in a non-capitalist way.

This doesnt seem to be possible. Even "state-capitalism" like the USSR is still technically capitalism. These seem about the only ways to industrialize without soley relying on outside resources


And WHY would you keep them from having their libertarian farm life? If they want to...why not?

Im not fucking keeping them from shit dumbass, but I would not support them if thats what they(the zapatistas) wanted. Especially since they would be forcing that shit on everyone, because there is no way in hell city workers would want to go back to primitive farm life.

[Enragé]

The russians tried to do this, as did the chinese, it doesnt work. You cant just skip stages of development

It failed because they tried to do it on a suicidal pace, they tried to do in 20 years what other countries did in 120. On top of that they threw away their ideology to do this, they threw away democracy, equality, and above all freedom.

Look, why cant you just have extreme democracy in all parts of life including the economy (thus somethin very close to communism) and then build some factories (cuz hey the people want to have cars &#39;n shit). I&#39;m sure it would take alot longer than under capitalism...but...who cares?


Yes because everyone in Mexico wants to be a farmer

Ofcourse not, but some do. Especially in the agrarian areas.


Its not that they wouldnt want to industrialize, its that they cant.

Why?
again
"Look, why cant you just have extreme democracy in all parts of life including the economy (thus somethin very close to communism) and then build some factories (cuz hey the people want to have cars &#39;n shit). I&#39;m sure it would take alot longer than under capitalism...but...who cares?"





Really, have a communique? I didnt even think they had an outlined plan, or do you just think thats what they are doing?



"V - What We Want To Do


We are now going to tell you what we want to do in the world and in Mexico, because we cannot watch everything that is happening on our planet and just remain quiet, as if it were only we were where we are.

What we want in the world is to tell all of those who are resisting and fighting in their own ways and in their own countries, that you are not alone, that we, the zapatistas, even though we are very small, are supporting you, and we are going to look at how to help you in your struggles and to speak to you in order to learn, because what we have, in fact, learned is to learn. [you can see the internationalist tendency here]

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

And we want to tell the people of Cuba, who have now been on their path of resistance for many years, that you are not alone, and we do not agree with the blockade they are imposing, and we are going to see how to send you something, even if it is maize, for your resistance.And we want to tell the North American people that we know that the bad governments which you have and which spread harm throughout the world is one thing - and those North Americans who struggle in their country, and who are in solidarity with the struggles of other countries, are a very different thing. And we want to tell the Mapuche brothers and sisters in Chile that we are watching and learning from your struggles. And to the Venezuelans, we see how well you are defending your sovereignty, your nation&#39;s right to decide where it is going. And to the indigenous brothers and sisters of Ecuador and Bolivia, we say you are giving a good lesson in history to all of Latin America, because now you are indeed putting a halt to neoliberal globalization. And to the piqueteros and to the young people of Argentina, we want to tell you that, that we love you. And to those in Uruguay who want a better country, we admire you. And to those who are sin tierra in Brazil, that we respect you. And to all the young people of Latin America, that what you are doing is good, and you give us great hope.


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

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

And we want to tell the world that we want to make you large, so large that all those worlds will fit, those worlds which are resisting because they want to destroy the neoliberals and because they simply cannot stop fighting for humanity.

Now then, what we want to do in Mexico is to make an agreement with persons and organizations just of the left, because we believe that it is in the political left where the idea of resisting neoliberal globalization is, and of making a country where there will be justice, democracy and liberty for everyone. Not as it is right now, where there is justice only for the rich, there is liberty only for their big businesses, [i]and there is democracy only for painting walls with election propaganda. And because we believe that it is only from the left that a plan of struggle can emerge, so that our Patria, which is Mexico, does not die. [opposition to the general way of running things]

And, then, what we think is that, with these persons and organizations of the left, we will make a plan for going to all those parts of Mexico where there are humble and simple people like ourselves. [expanding beyond chiapas, creating something different]

And we are not going to tell them what they should do or give them orders.

Nor are we going to ask them to vote for a candidate, since we already know that the ones who exist are neoliberals.

Nor are we going to tell them to be like us, nor to rise up in arms.

What we are going to do is to ask them what their lives are like, their struggle, their thoughts about our country and what we should do so they do not defeat us.

What we are going to do is to take heed of the thoughts of the simple and humble people, and perhaps we will find there the same love which we feel for our Patria.

And perhaps we will find agreement between those of us who are simple and humble and, together, we will organize all over the country and reach agreement in our struggles, which are alone right now, separated from each other, and we will find something like a program that has what we all want, and a plan for how we are going to achieve the realization of that program, which is called the &#39;national program of struggle.&#39;

And, with the agreement of the majority of those people whom we are going to listen to, we will then engage in a struggle with everyone, with indigenous, workers, campesinos, students, teachers, employees, women, children, old ones, men, and with all of those of good heart and who want to struggle so that our Patria called Mexico does not end up being destroyed and sold, and which still exists between the Rio Grande and the Rio Suchiate and which has the Pacific Ocean on one side and the Atlantic on the other."

"VI - How We Are Going To Do It

And so this is our simple word that goes out to the humble and simple people of Mexico and of the world, and we are calling our word of today:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona

And we are here to say, with our simple word, that ...

The EZLN maintains its commitment to an offensive ceasefire, and it will not make any attack against government forces or any offensive military movements.

The EZLN still maintains its commitment to insisting on the path of political struggle through this peaceful initiative which we are now undertaking. The EZLN continues, therefore, in its resolve to not establish any kind of secret relations with either national political-military organizations or those from other countries.

The EZLN reaffirms its commitment to defend, support and obey the zapatista indigenous communities of which it is composed, and which are its supreme command, and - without interfering in their internal democratic processes - will, to the best of its abilities, contribute to the strengthening of their autonomy, good government and improvement in their living conditions. In other words, what we are going to do in Mexico and in the world, we are going to do without arms, with a civil and peaceful movement, and without neglecting nor ceasing to support our communities.

Therefore ...
In the World?

1 - We will forge new relationships of mutual respect and support with persons and organizations who are resisting and struggling against neoliberalism and for humanity.

2 - As far as we are able, we will send material aid such as food and handicrafts for those brothers and sisters who are struggling all over the world.

In order to begin, we are going to ask the Good Government Junta of La Realidad to loan their truck, which is called &#39;Chompiras,&#39; and which appears to hold 8 tons, and we are going to fill it with maize and perhaps two 200 liter cans with oil or petrol, as they prefer, and we are going to deliver it to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico for them to send to the Cuban people as aid from the zapatistas for their resistance against the North American blockade. Or perhaps there might be a place closer to here where it could be delivered, because it&#39;s always such a long distance to Mexico City, and what if &#39;Chompiras&#39; were to break down and we&#39;d end up in bad shape. And that will happen when the harvest comes in, which is turning green right now in the fields, and if they don&#39;t attack us, because if we were to send it during these next few months, it would be nothing but corncobs, and they don&#39;t turn out well even in tamales, better in November or December, it depends.

And we are also going to make an agreement with the women&#39;s crafts cooperatives in order to send a good number of bordados, embroidered pieces, to the Europes which are perhaps not yet Union, and perhaps we&#39;ll also send some organic coffee from the zapatista cooperatives, so that they can sell it and get a little money for their struggle. And, if it isn&#39;t sold, then they can always have a little cup of coffee and talk about the anti-neoliberal struggle, and if it&#39;s a bit cold then they can cover themselves up with the zapatista bordados, which do indeed resist quite well being laundered by hand and by rocks, and, besides, they don&#39;t run in the wash.

And we are also going to send the indigenous brothers and sisters of Bolivia and Ecuador some non-transgenic maize, and we just don&#39;t know where to send them so they arrive complete, but we are indeed willing to give this little bit of aid.

3 - And to all of those who are resisting throughout the world, we say there must be other intercontinental encuentros held, even if just one other. Perhaps December of this year or next January, we&#39;ll have to think about it. We don&#39;t want to say just when, because this is about our agreeing equally on everything, on where, on when, on how, on who. But not with a stage where just a few speak and all the rest listen, but without a stage, just level and everyone speaking, but orderly, otherwise it will just be a hubbub and the words won&#39;t be understood, and with good organization everyone will hear and jot down in their notebooks the words of resistance from others, so then everyone can go and talk with their compañeros and compañeras in their worlds. And we think it might be in a place that has a very large jail, because what if they were to repress us and incarcerate us, and so that way we wouldn&#39;t be all piled up, prisoners, yes, but well organized, and there in the jail we could continue the intercontinental encuentros for humanity and against neoliberalism. Later on we&#39;ll tell you what we shall do in order to reach agreement as to how we&#39;re going to come to agreement. Now that is how we&#39;re thinking of doing what we want to do in the world. Now follows ...


In Mexico ...

1 - We are going to continue fighting for the Indian peoples of Mexico, but now not just for them and not with only them, but for all the exploited and dispossessed of Mexico, with all of them and all over the country. And when we say all the exploited of Mexico, we are also talking about the brothers and sisters who have had to go to the United States in search of work in order to survive.

2 - We are going to go to listen to, and talk directly with, without intermediaries or mediation, the simple and humble of the Mexican people, and, according to what we hear and learn, we are going to go about building, along with those people who, like us, are humble and simple, a national program of struggle, but a program which will be clearly of the left, or anti-capitalist, or anti-neoliberal, or for justice, democracy and liberty for the Mexican people.

3 - We are going to try to build, or rebuild, another way of doing politics, one which once again has the spirit of serving others without material interests, with sacrifice, with dedication, with honesty, which keeps its word, whose only payment is the satisfaction of duty performed, or like the militants of the left did before, when they were not stopped by blows, jail or death, let alone by dollar bills.

4 - We are also going to go about raising a struggle in order to demand that we make a new Constitution, new laws which take into account the demands of the Mexican people, which are: housing, land, work, food, health, education, information, culture, independence, democracy, justice, liberty and peace. A new Constitution which recognizes the rights and liberties of the people, and which defends the weak in the face of the powerful. "


the rest can be found here http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=805

i suggest you read all of it.


Meh, everyone is oppossed to violence? Doubt it. They could have easily taken Mexico city(support wise) if that was their original aim.

I doubt they could have done that.
I know they are being cautious, too cautious perhaps, but hey...maybe cautious is the way to go right about now. Last we want and need is another USSR to smother the revolution for years to come.



How is FARC not democratic?

Hasnt their command thingy changed barely for like 40 years
anyway if you could supply me with articles which arent too obviously biased, by all means do give them.


Well if thats not a step backwards I dont know what is. Should they start running around in loin-cloths too?

I just gave an example of non-industrialised communism. So a form of communism IS possible in a non-industrialised area.


Not really, nothing they really have done hasnt been thought of before.

Well at least they are going about it in a new way.


Im not fucking keeping them from shit dumbass, but I would not support them if thats what they(the zapatistas) wanted. Especially since they would be forcing that shit on everyone, because there is no way in hell city workers would want to go back to primitive farm life.

But they wouldnt force anything lol. Zapatismo doesnt force a thing :P thats both its strength as well as its weakness.

Urban Zapatismo might well be communism, because the cities are largely industrialized are they not? So....form of agrarian communism untill they have industrialized in the countryside, straight to communism in the cities.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 02:45 PM




It failed because they tried to do it on a suicidal pace, they tried to do in 20 years what other countries did in 120. On top of that they threw away their ideology to do this, they threw away democracy, equality, and above all freedom.

It failed because you cant "skip" capitalism. No matter how fast you do it.


Look, why cant you just have extreme democracy in all parts of life including the economy (thus somethin very close to communism) and then build some factories (cuz hey the people want to have cars &#39;n shit). I&#39;m sure it would take alot longer than under capitalism...but...who cares?

It doesnt really work like that. Industrialization as far as I&#39;ve seen needs centralization in order to do it effectively. Whether that centralization be in the hands of the bourgeois or in the hands of a leninist.


Ofcourse not, but some do. Especially in the agrarian areas.

So that defeats your arguement "if they all want it agararian, let them have it"


Why?
again
"Look, why cant you just have extreme democracy in all parts of life including the economy (thus somethin very close to communism) and then build some factories (cuz hey the people want to have cars &#39;n shit). I&#39;m sure it would take alot longer than under capitalism...but...who cares?"

You can just "do this". Part of the reason you couldnt do this because you would not have the technology to do this. How would you be in contact with these communities in order to do these things if you dont even have any fucking roads, it would be impossible to use direct democracy to do this.

Industrialization is not just "building a factory". You have to supply the factory with materials, those materials must be transfered to places to be used, you cant do this on dirt paths on a steep mountain.


i suggest you read all of it.

I did, as I have read these when they came out too. Its vague. They are going to support the left, such as leninists in Cuba, and the bourgeois left in Venezuela. Yet they are against political parties, etc. This doesnt make any sense. The most of what they actually planned on doing was sending coffee and crafts to people, to build relationships. They have not outlined a plan to industrialize mexico through direct democracy. With those communiques they could do all kinds of fucking things because its not specific.


Last we want and need is another USSR to smother the revolution for years to come.

The USSR had not hope of anything other than capitalism. And it did its job well and fast. Now Russia has a proletariat and the ways and means for people to take community control in the future.


Hasnt their command thingy changed barely for like 40 years
anyway if you could supply me with articles which arent too obviously biased, by all means do give them.

Are you referring to the army? Theres no such things as a democratic army. That defeats the purpose.


I just gave an example of non-industrialised communism. So a form of communism IS possible in a non-industrialised area.

Non industrialized communism is not what Marx wanted. Nor do most people on this board, or the world.


Well at least they are going about it in a new way.

Going about what? Sending coffee and crafts to people?


But they wouldnt force anything lol. Zapatismo doesnt force a thing :P thats both its strength as well as its weakness.

I understand that. I know about the Zapatistas well, I have changed my viewpoint on them however and question their supporters. But if their final system is agrarian communism there is no way all of Mexico would accept that, thats my point.


Urban Zapatismo might well be communism, because the cities are largely industrialized are they not? So....form of agrarian communism untill they have industrialized in the countryside, straight to communism in the cities.

Its been tried, doesnt work.

[Enragé]

It failed because you cant "skip" capitalism. No matter how fast you do it.

yes you said that before

but
WHY?


It doesnt really work like that. Industrialization as far as I&#39;ve seen needs centralization in order to do it effectively. Whether that centralization be in the hands of the bourgeois or in the hands of a leninist.

I dont care if its effective or not, i dont care if it takes a hundred years, but im not gonna let people all across the world suffer just because according "you cant skip capitalism". I find that unacceptable


So that defeats your arguement "if they all want it agararian, let them have it"

no it doesnt. I said that those who want it agrarian keep it agrarian, i dont care. Freedom, justice and equality, thats what its about...not dumb dogma. Ideas are tools to get to freedom justice and equality, an idea in itself is not a goal.


You can just "do this". Part of the reason you couldnt do this because you would not have the technology to do this. How would you be in contact with these communities in order to do these things if you dont even have any fucking roads, it would be impossible to use direct democracy to do this.

Maybe because the little autonomous are isnt the only fucking place in existence? Industrialised areas will help the non-industrialised areas industrialise.


Industrialization is not just "building a factory". You have to supply the factory with materials, those materials must be transfered to places to be used, you cant do this on dirt paths on a steep mountain.

thats why you will need support from already industrialised areas...and seeing as they are in ample supply...problem solved.


Its vague. They are going to support the left, such as leninists in Cuba, and the bourgeois left in Venezuela. Yet they are against political parties, etc. This doesnt make any sense. The most of what they actually planned on doing was sending coffee and crafts to people, to build relationships. They have not outlined a plan to industrialize mexico through direct democracy. With those communiques they could do all kinds of fucking things because its not specific.


It is vague, i agree. But i think its reasonable to assume that the zapatistas want their country to progress, thus to industrialise. They have never stated they are against industrialisation, if they were, they would have said so.

They are against political parties because they do not lead to true change, yet they want relationships with anything remotely left because they want the people to unite. This actually makes alot of sense.
They HAVE outlined that they want a TRUE alternative, in which the people control the country. from the left, anti-capitalist, anti-neoliberalist and from below

the zapatistas have a saying
everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves

i think that illustrates their intent well enough.

And as i said, i do not support them in everything they do, they are too cautious, too vague in the communiques, but perhaps this might turn out to be something positive, it might create a link to those sick of communist dogma, sick of what they&#39;ve heard over and over again coming out of the mouths of stalinists, void, without meaning.

They could be saying "in the name of the people, we declare a people&#39;s war on this corrupt capitalist imperialist lackey bourgeois government. Death to the class traitors, death to the bourgeois, long live Marxism&#33; Long live fidel&#33; Long live marxism-*insert movement&#39;s name/leader&#39;s name*ism&#33;"

You might like it, but nobody else will. As soon as they see the words "in the name of the people" they stop reading cuz they heard it a thousand times before out of the mouths of aspiring dictators, mass murderers, backstabber, and traitors to the revolution.


The USSR had not hope of anything other than capitalism. And it did its job well and fast. Now Russia has a proletariat and the ways and means for people to take community control in the future.

nonsense


But if their final system is agrarian communism there is no way all of Mexico would accept that, thats my point.

But what im trying to say, its not Their final system is whatever the people wants it to be, and when what happens whatever the people want it to be (and logically whatever the people want will continue to happen) you logically end up with a form of communism.


Its been tried, doesnt work.

I doubt that very much.
When has it been tried?
And why wouldnt it work?

[octovia]

The only thing left of this movement is its nihilist standout of non conformism.Many may be enticed by this movement,may they be young or even old but there is no reason to oppose the current political structure of Mexico.Fighting against such things as racial prejudice is a real come down from any kind of Revolution.This cause has out-lived its objectives and no longer serves any purpose.This is no disrespect to Delegate Zero or the others but i truly believe their "struggle" is now finally over.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 05:44 PM




yes you said that before

but
WHY?

Because, you cant go from being agrarian to communism without creating a proletariat.


Industrialised areas will help the non-industrialised areas industrialise.

Yes native bourgeoisie would help eachother out but they cant do this while being the US&#39;s lapdog. The EZLN will not challenge the mexican state therfore they cant do this.


thats why you will need support from already industrialised areas...and seeing as they are in ample supply...problem solved.

No. Its not, see above.


You might like it, but nobody else will. As soon as they see the words "in the name of the people" they stop reading cuz they heard it a thousand times before out of the mouths of aspiring dictators, mass murderers, backstabber, and traitors to the revolution.

And the same could happen to them...


nonsense

Why is that?


I doubt that very much.
When has it been tried?
And why wouldnt it work?

Ever heard of Russia, why didnt the few cities with industries just spread it to the peasentry? Its not possible on a direct democratic basis.

I question the industrialization of Mexican cities, im sure they have some industries but I question the ammount of proles.

[WUOrevolt]

The way I see is that with this new political tour that they are emabrking on a mission to try and build an alternative movement in Mexico against the usual political patries of the country. Many are not voting at all because they say that they will both be fed lies and broekn promises with the candidates which is true. What they are trying to do is build a semi revolutionary movement to radically change the way the Mexican political system works by mobilizing the people of Mexico (especially the indegenous), to build a new system without taking over the state. I is kind of like a revolution in Mexican social issues as well as political issues.

And look at the Zapatista communities in Southern Mexico, they are much better off than they were in 1993.

[Enragé]

Because, you cant go from being agrarian to communism without creating a proletariat.

not if its some sort of primitivist communism, meaning communism without a proletariat.


Yes native bourgeoisie would help eachother out but they cant do this while being the US&#39;s lapdog. The EZLN will not challenge the mexican state therfore they cant do this.
Workers in the cities can help the farmers industrialise. Also, aid from other countries would they revolt could become available.



And the same could happen to them...

Sure, but its less likely cuz they are so extremely democratic.

And that really wasnt the point now was it.


Ever heard of Russia, why didnt the few cities with industries just spread it to the peasentry? Its not possible on a direct democratic basis.

when was there (after the civil war) any direct democracy???


I question the industrialization of Mexican cities, im sure they have some industries but I question the ammount of proles.

more than there were in russia.


actually
this is quite nice
Labor force - by occupation:
agriculture 18%, industry 24%, services 58% (2003)

wayyyyy workers (both in industry as well as services) than farmers ;)

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html