The Zapatistas [Archive]

pandora

22nd May 2006, 04:50

There seems to be a lot of ignorance of the situation in Chiapas. It is a difficult situation. The cities are as modern and very European. The majority of the Mayan people are pro-Zapatista. But the rich land owners have paramilitary are often having bad intentions to steal land and working with the government.

The government built a nice new shiny road to surround the Zapatista communities, and now they can get arms there in 12 hours instead of 2 days. This accessibility has made Chiapas very hard to defend. Still you can not keep a people hostage and the majority of Mayans side with the Zapatista.

The middle class who see themselves as more Spanish blood are a mixed bag, and are more interested in exploiting the new tourism brought in by the Zapatista to buy shiny new trucks. Many of these individuals have moved to the area since the tourism started displacing the local people to make money off the tourists.

This last year it was very hard for Mayan women to come to town and sell. The government made it very hard on them, and harassed them coming and going as an attempt to "clean up" San Cristobel.

In other words the Mayan are what bring the tourists, but now that the tourists are coming to see Marcos, they want to keep the tourists dollars and get rid of the Mayan. They treat the Mayan like the are inferior although they are the true lords of the Jungle.

It is very sad. Their culture is under attack now by modernization. The international support for the Zapatista has also exposed them to the modern world at such a high rate a lot of their language and customs are being lost.

Ian

22nd May 2006, 15:04

NWOG www.google.com

Global_Justice

22nd May 2006, 18:04

isn't there an election in mexico on july 5th or abouts? and there is a left wing guy supported by chavez? does he have any links to the zapatistas?

barista.marxista

22nd May 2006, 19:14

Lopez Obrador is the "leftist" candidate for the July 2006 elections, and he is supported by the ALBA nations in Latin America, including Chávez, Morales, etc.. The Zapatista communities fully reject Obrador's faux-leftism, and Marcos has been decrying him as a centrist and a statist during the La Otra campaign. the Zapatistas think that Obrador will bring in a neoliberalized "left"ism, as we have seen in Venezuela, which is threatening to the autonomy of their communities.

Janus

22nd May 2006, 20:56

Of course, the Zapatistas control Chiapas as others have said. Their forces aren't spectacular but if they didn't have any then the Mexican army would've already moved in by now.

I'm quite amazed at how the Zapatistas have attracted widespread international support due to their use of technology, etc. Their actions have brought attention to the plight of poor minorities in many areas.

Ander

22nd May 2006, 21:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:04 AM
NWOG www.google.com
Dude, why do you have to be such a pain in the ass?

This website is meant for asking questions and educating others. Why do you even post here?

Tree_Hugger

22nd May 2006, 21:38

the band Anti-pFlag wrote a song called 'Zapatista, Don't Give Up'. it's pretty crazy. . . . . :D (that's unfortunately the extent of my knowledge of the Zapitistas or Marcos)( :P )

The Grey Blur

22nd May 2006, 21:59

Originally posted by Jello+May 22 2006, 08:09 PM--> (Jello @ May 22 2006, 08:09 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 11:04 AM
NWOG www.google.com
Dude, why do you have to be such a pain in the ass?

This website is meant for asking questions and educating others. Why do you even post here? [/b]
In fairness NWOG does post a lot of queries, but at least this one turned into a meaningful conversation

Ander

22nd May 2006, 22:06

Since when is asking questions a bad thing? If everyone who posted here knew everything about politics then there would much less discussion, wouldn't there be?

What's the point of trying to act superior and block others from learning? How is that revolutionary? That just divides us further...well done.

MurderInc

22nd May 2006, 22:30

The Zapatistas will be responsible for Mexico's Revoution against their FEDERAL government.

They will be principle leaders of the Revolution in the southern region. But about 1/2 will not follow them nor support them.

The Grey Blur

22nd May 2006, 23:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:06 PM
Since when is asking questions a bad thing? If everyone who posted here knew everything about politics then there would much less discussion, wouldn't there be?

What's the point of trying to act superior and block others from learning? How is that revolutionary? That just divides us further...well done.
I don't mean political questions, I meant random queries that no-one can really answer

NWOG: Why Is It Forbidden? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50284)
NWOG: Commandante (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49600)
NWOG: Suppression Of Socialist Publications (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49892)
NWOG: Marxism and the dynasties (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50374)
NWOG: Mao & Che (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49438)
Who Is This Man? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50183)

Those are just a few examples, there are many more now le's not go any further off-topic

karmaradical

23rd May 2006, 00:30

From what i understand the Zapatistas have started a few communities in Oaxaca, but I'm not too sure. They have drawn a lot of support from the punk scene in Mexico, but most workers in the north still dont know too much about them. Except for the merchants of course, who know damn well about marcos because of the 1090849892 "Marcos Shirts" that can be bought in Mexico.

Why do we insist on putting each revolutionary on a T shirt.

Also if any of you live in the southwesth US, go to Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico on June 3rd-June 8th. Marcos will be there. Juarez is one of the biggest cities in Mexico, and is a major site for the maquiladora factories that supply Wal-Mart.

Comrade Yev

23rd May 2006, 01:22

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+May 21 2006, 09:09 PM--> (Fist of Blood @ May 21 2006, 09:09 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 08:04 PM
My Dad lives in Mexico. He told me a couple months ago that Marcos is running for president! But people don't take him seriously because of his ski mask.
He's not going to run for president. He's currently traveling around the country asking people to not vote. [/b]
Thats what I was thinking. It'd be against his message for him to run for office.

Plus he wouldn't get many votes after convincing his supporters not to vote. hehe

Messiah

23rd May 2006, 11:17

Is there any sort of legitimate way to donate/support the EZLN? By "legitimate" I mean, like you know your money would be going to the right people? Or do they even make use of money? In any case, something constructive we can do to help their cause?

ComradeOm

23rd May 2006, 11:42

Originally posted by FinnMacCool+May 22 2006, 01:49 AM--> (FinnMacCool @ May 22 2006, 01:49 AM)In my opinion, Marcos is the new Che Guevara. He is quickly becoming the new symbol of the oppressed people. He's an extraordinary man and I have a lot of respect for him.[/b]
The fuck? When was the last time Che rode around asking people not to vote? You're comparing a revolutionary to a reformist.

barista.marxista
The Zapatistas are hardly reformist.
Yes, because an organisation that renounces violence and dallies in civil means to influence the state is quite revolutionary :rolleyes:

The Zapatistas have been romanticised by the petit-bourgeois radicals on the Left with Marcos as some sort of Robin Hood figure. This is despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that they have laid down their guns and embraced the TV cameras. They lost their struggle with the state and now play the role of the comical sideshow in Mexican politics.

There was a time when the Zapatistas were a real insurgency. But they never had the will to do what it takes to continue their fight. They can’t be compared to the likes of FARC, never mind Che.

karmaradical

23rd May 2006, 22:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:42 AM

There was a time when the Zapatistas were a real insurgency. But they never had the will to do what it takes to continue their fight. They can’t be compared to the likes of FARC, never mind Che.
Because we alll know what a fantastic job the FARC is doing! The Miltias of South America have been so succesful. I mean look at Shining Path, its not like their corrupt. Besides theyve been fighting a war for about 35 years, havnt they already won? Oh yeah i forgot, FARC and Shining Path are total failures. I must have been mixing failure with success again.

The zapatistas were never really even militaristic. In the first uprising half of the guns were toy guns. When the Zapatistas were seen as miltaristic guerillas in the jungle, they had very little respect in Mexico. In the mid-90s they were a joke. They have to get the respect of the Working Class in the urbanized regions, and they are doing this with La Otra.

I would put my trust with the Zapatistas any day before FARC. Hell id put my trust in a social democracy party before FARC, and thats saying a lot.

Louis Pio

23rd May 2006, 23:39

QUOTE]They have to get the respect of the Working Class in the urbanized regions, and they are doing this with La Otra. [/QUOTE]

Hmmm I agree with the working class perspective, but as I see it the zapatistas are becoming more and more like european Social Democrats, revolution is as I see it not on their agenda. They seem rather happy with having autonoumous (bad spelling I think - sorry) regions.
In the latest working class fights they havent been present, which in my oppinion is quite natural because of their origins.
As I see it they won't be able to play any important role in Mexico, anyway if events prove me wrong I will change my mind :)

Mexico: police attack striking steel workers, kill three (http://www.marxist.com/mexico-striking-steel-workers250406.htm)

barista.marxista

24th May 2006, 05:34

Yes, because an organisation that renounces violence and dallies in civil means to influence the state is quite revolutionary rolleyes.gif

Could you please tell me when they renounced violence? Because Zapatistas carry guns and fight with the military...when the military attacks Zapatista communities. They realized if they existed solely as an offensive military force, they'd become the next FARC or Sendero Luminoso. But they support working-class offensives, as we just saw in the revolts at San Salvador Atenco, and Texcoco.

The Zapatistas have been romanticised by the petit-bourgeois radicals on the Left with Marcos as some sort of Robin Hood figure.

No, they're been romanticised by petit-bourgeois radicals who imagine them to be the "first post-modern revolution." This incredibly ignorant view ignores exactly what is so important, radical, and threatening about the Zapatistas: the approximately 1,100 communities, and 4-5,000 people, organized autonomously and networked around Mexico. It's the culmination and implementation of decades of autonomist thought -- decided by the workers, for the workers. THAT is revolutionary.

There was a time when the Zapatistas were a real insurgency. But they never had the will to do what it takes to continue their fight. They can’t be compared to the likes of FARC, never mind Che.

You're right -- they can't be compared to FARC. Because currently FARC has little connection with the workers of Columbia, and they're waging a self-reproducing revolution which, after forty years, has made little success. Meanwhile, the Zapatistas serve as an army to protect an entire network of autonomous communities -- communities which have taken control over their own lives, work, and production, and have organized it in a more egalitarian and socialistic manner than nearly any revolution we've seen in the last fifty years.

I'd recommend you actually read that essay I linked to, so you can know what and how the Zapatistas have accomplished, instead of spouting dogmatic Leninist shit everywhere.

heavymanners

24th May 2006, 06:21

For anyone interested, you can actually go to a Zapatista community in Chiapas and study Spanish and/or Tsotsil. I did it a couple of years ago, and it was worthwhile.

Here's the link for info: http://www.serazln-altos.org/eng/celm.html

I think a lot of the writing from North American and European leftists tends to project traditional leftist categories onto the EZLN (anarchists see it as anarchist, socialists as socialist, etc), and underestimate the extent to which it is largely an indigenous sovereignty movement. The Aufebhen article posted earlier probably comes closest to fitting with my own interpretation of what was going on down there, though again perhaps underestimates how significant the 'indigenist' aspect of the Zapatismo seems to be. I'm ultimately not sure where things are headed with this 'new direction' the EZLN has taken, or even exactly what they are trying to do now though.

As far as the military strength of the EZLN goes, I don't think it really has a lot of capacity that way. As a movement, it seems to rely more on sort of 'mass disobedience and refusal', even in terms of keeping the Mexican military out of the autonomous communities. The attention of civil rights observers, media, etc has also been really important in terms of preventing the Mexican military from attacking over the last decade or so.

barista.marxista

24th May 2006, 07:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:21 AM
...and underestimate the extent to which it is largely an indigenous sovereignty movement. The Aufebhen article posted earlier probably comes closest to fitting with my own interpretation of what was going on down there, though again perhaps underestimates how significant the 'indigenist' aspect of the Zapatismo seems to be.
That's why it can especially be seen as an autonomist, albeit not consciously, rebellion. The idea that a group who identify themselves as indigenous decide what is necessary for their own lives, and realized it through the process of self-valorisation, is so important. Rarely do we see people figuring it out for themselves how to organize, and not being told by some elite vanguard and/or the bourgeois intelligentsia. It has its ups and downs -- the Zapatistas did advocate for the formation of a new democratic party, and then through experience they realized politics are shit. It's self-realization, not dogma. That's how revolution must be made, or else it isn't revolutionary.

heavymanners

24th May 2006, 08:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 06:08 AM
...The idea that a group who identify themselves as indigenous decide what is necessary for their own lives, and realized it through the process of self-valorisation, is so important. Rarely do we see people figuring it out for themselves how to organize, and not being told by some elite vanguard and/or the bourgeois intelligentsia.

The Zapatistas are definitely an innovative model in many ways, and very democratic, but their political model isn't entirely spontaneous and self-generated from the indigenous community. Even the Aufebhen article points to the role former 'traditional' marxist guerrilla groups and urban intellectuals like Marcos played in the formation of the movement. Liberation theology is also very significant down there, and the Zapatista community I visited had a Catholic church.

I definitely don't want to take away from what the EZLN has done, but there's always a danger of romanticising them and trying to make it fit a particular model of how we think struggle "should" be. I'm sympathetic to a lot of autonomous marxist theory, but autonomist activists can be just as prone as everyone else to projecting their own hopes, dreams and historical teleologies onto their analysis of real political and social movements.

It has its ups and downs -- the Zapatistas did advocate for the formation of a new democratic party, and then through experience they realized politics are shit. It's self-realization, not dogma. That's how revolution must be made, or else it isn't revolutionary.

The EZLN people I spoke to in Chiapas were actually pretty careful about avoiding telling people elesewhere exactly how revolution "must be made." I personally don't think there's some universal, ahistorical template on how people can successfully struggle for revolutionary change. The EZLN are doing what they can in their historical circumstances, elsewhere it might make sense to organise differently, perhaps even participate in electoral politcs, etc.

ComradeOm

24th May 2006, 11:05

Originally posted by karmaradical+--> (karmaradical)Because we alll know what a fantastic job the FARC is doing! The Miltias of South America have been so succesful. I mean look at Shining Path, its not like their corrupt. Besides theyve been fighting a war for about 35 years, havnt they already won? Oh yeah i forgot, FARC and Shining Path are total failures. I must have been mixing failure with success again.[/b]
Did I mention Shining Path? No I mentioned an organisation that controls large swathes of the Colombian countryside, has roughly 15-20 thousand members and has been engaged in civil war with the Colombian government for decades. If it wasn’t for billions of dollars in American aid the government would have already fallen. Now that is a real revolutionary movement.

But because FARC doesn’t pander to the American middle class left with “nice” gestures such as non-violence and civil action and insists on actually fighting the bourgeoisie its somehow a “failure”?

The zapatistas were never really even militaristic. In the first uprising half of the guns were toy guns. When the Zapatistas were seen as miltaristic guerillas in the jungle, they had very little respect in Mexico. In the mid-90s they were a joke. They have to get the respect of the Working Class in the urbanized regions, and they are doing this with La Otra.
The Zapatistas have never presented a real threat to the Mexican bourgeoisie precisely because they have continually failed to match the government’s will with arms. The final death of the Zapatistas as a revolutionary alternative came after the Acteal massacre. EZLN’s response – nothing.

I would put my trust with the Zapatistas any day before FARC. Hell id put my trust in a social democracy party before FARC, and thats saying a lot.
And I look forward to the day when this site starts restricting reformist fucks like yourself. I’m sure you’d be much happier on a liberal site where people fawn over “anti-globalisation” heroes that don’t fire a shot.

barista.marxista
Could you please tell me when they renounced violence?
You mean apart from touring the country without arms? Try this from the Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona (http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/SixthDeclaration.html)

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.

"Political struggle through... peaceful initiative" How the fuck can you call these people revolutionary? :angry:

It's the culmination and implementation of decades of autonomist thought -- decided by the workers, for the workers. THAT is revolutionary.
And there I was thinking that “revolutionary” included overthrowing the state.

You're right -- they can't be compared to FARC. Because currently FARC has little connection with the workers of Columbia, and they're waging a self-reproducing revolution which, after forty years, has made little success.
Whereas the Zapatistas are unable to protect their communities. As a military force they have been destroyed by the government. The difference between FARC and EZLN is simple – the latter lost their war. Had they tasted military success then they would not be reduced to asking people nicely not to vote.

I'd recommend you actually read that essay I linked to, so you can know what and how the Zapatistas have accomplished, instead of spouting dogmatic Leninist shit everywhere.
Suddenly its Leninist to call for revolution and dismiss social-democrats? “Leninism” is not a get out of jail card for you to use anytime someone challenges your pacifist and reformist platform.

Its true however that I do have an "old fashioned" approach to revolutionary movements. If they don't take up arms against the state then they are not revolutionary. Simple, no?

The Grey Blur

24th May 2006, 13:45

The Zapatistas are still inspirational, even if they are moving in a (neccessary) reformist direction

Regardless, the autonomous Chiapas sound like a very cool thing

Hiero

24th May 2006, 14:54

In my opinion, Marcos is the new Che Guevara. He is quickly becoming the new symbol of the oppressed people. He's an extraordinary man and I have a lot of respect for him.

What people?

bolshevik butcher

24th May 2006, 15:17

The zapatisatas have taken a turn to reformism yet at the sametime taken an ultraleftist stand over Mexicos elections. It's ridiculous to tell Mexicans not to vote for the left candidate who will clearly benifit the working class much more than the right wing alternative. The zapitistas are also isolated from the wider working class. They should be trying to build an effective revolutionary platform inside the current left in Mexico yet stand outside like an irrelevant soar thumb. The fact that they have rejected seizing state power also adds to this.

Just Dave

24th May 2006, 15:46

I mentioned an organisation that controls large swathes of the Colombian countryside, has roughly 15-20 thousand members and has been engaged in civil war with the Colombian government for decades. If it wasn’t for billions of dollars in American aid the government would have already fallen. Now that is a real revolutionary movement.

But because FARC doesn’t pander to the American middle class left with “nice” gestures such as non-violence and civil action and insists on actually fighting the bourgeoisie its somehow a “failure”?

Please. The FARC are far to busy selling cocaine and oppressing the indegenous people of the country side the occupy to be fighting bourgeois. It has failed because in 40 years it has accomplished fuck all that couldn't have been done without reform.

The Zapatistas have never presented a real threat to the Mexican bourgeoisie precisely because they have continually failed to match the government’s will with arms. The final death of the Zapatistas as a revolutionary alternative came after the Acteal massacre. EZLN’s response – nothing.

What about when they took Chiapas? And fought with the miliatry head on? Granted it wasn't a full scale victory, but they've improved things hugely for the working class there.

And I look forward to the day when this site starts restricting reformist fucks like yourself.

:lol: When it does Rebel Left's member list will explode leaving the Stalinists and FARC sympathisers like youself.

"Political struggle through... peaceful initiative" How the fuck can you call these people revolutionary?

Since when does revolution have to involve blood? The revolution, certainly in Europe, will come through a mass workers party succeding in bourgeoise elections
and thus commence building socialism.

The difference between FARC and EZLN is simple – the latter lost their war. Had they tasted military success then they would not be reduced to asking people nicely not to vote.

No, the FARC are doomed to fail, they're just prolonging the process, and the Zapatista have built successful communities, of which I doubt the government would have the balls to attack.

Its true however that I do have an "old fashioned" approach to revolutionary movements. If they don't take up arms against the state then they are not revolutionary. Simple, no?

No. Taking up arms is the last resort for any revolutionary movment. Look at all the sucsessful revolutions (in that they succeded in taking power), despot unpopular leaders have been overthrown by popular mass parties that would have been elected given the oppurtunity.

Comrade Yev

24th May 2006, 16:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:54 AM

In my opinion, Marcos is the new Che Guevara. He is quickly becoming the new symbol of the oppressed people. He's an extraordinary man and I have a lot of respect for him.

What people?
The indigenous Chiapas

RedJacobin

25th May 2006, 02:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 10:05 AM
The final death of the Zapatistas as a revolutionary alternative came after the Acteal massacre. EZLN’s response – nothing.
Stan Goff elaborates on this analysis in his book Full Spectrum Disorder. It's worth checking out. He uses the imperialists' own documents to make his case from a military standpoint.

The point isn't to dictate to the Zapatistas what tactics they should use, but to show how progressives and "leftists" in the global North--who have never had to deal with the type of conditions or make the types of choices faced by people in poor countries--exercise a moral imperialism when they hold up the Zapatistas as the "good guerrillas" against "bad guerrillas" in other countries.

RedJacobin

25th May 2006, 02:34

Originally posted by Just [email protected] 24 2006, 02:46 PM
...the Zapatista have built successful communities, of which I doubt the government would have the balls to attack.
They've already been attacked. The biggest case was the Acteal Massacre in 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acteal_massacre
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/feb98mora.htm

heavymanners

25th May 2006, 03:55

Originally posted by fats+May 25 2006, 01:34 AM--> (fats @ May 25 2006, 01:34 AM)
Just [email protected] 24 2006, 02:46 PM
...the Zapatista have built successful communities, of which I doubt the government would have the balls to attack.
They've already been attacked. The biggest case was the Acteal Massacre in 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acteal_massacre
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/feb98mora.htm [/b]
Yeah, the EZLN really doesn't have the capacity to face the Mexian state head on. It would be suicidal for them even to attempt to at this point. The fact is, they rely largely on international media attention and civil society support to keep the Mexican state from attacking them. It would be bad PR (internationally and domestically) for the Mexican state to attack, and the state doesn't really have a lot to gain materially by attacking them at this point anyhow.

It seemed to be more or less a stalemate while I was down there in 2003. The army was stationed near the communities, but was more or less leaving them alone. The EZLN was involved in small scale disputes over land, etc but seemed to be avoiding direct conflict with the state as much as possible. Instead, they were focusing mostly on developing their communities (schools, clinics, economic development, etc) and reorganising their governance structures and processes (including kicking out some meddlesome, paternalistic NGOs from the USA and Europe).

Burrito

25th May 2006, 03:56

They, of course, control the Chiapas.

Not particularly. They have some camps deep in the Lacondon Jungle, but the balance of forces between the EZLN and the Mexican army kind of redefines the meaning of the word "asymmetrical".

Other than perhaps the threat of retribution against blatant paramilitary expeditions, the martial aspect of the EZLN is largely symbolic. They are more of a extra-parliamentary pressure group on behalf of the indigenous. And I personally think they are more effective that way.

The point isn't to dictate to the Zapatistas what tactics they should use, but to show how progressives and "leftists" in the global North--who have never had to deal with the type of conditions or make the types of choices faced by people in poor countries--exercise a moral imperialism when they hold up the Zapatistas as the "good guerrillas" against "bad guerrillas" in other countries.

Damn straight.

barista.marxista

25th May 2006, 04:43

Originally posted by "heavymanners"+--> ("heavymanners")Even the Aufebhen article points to the role former 'traditional' marxist guerrilla groups[/b]

Yes, but the Aufheben article emphasizes their influence on Ejercito Zapatista, not on the autonomous network. We must seperate the army for the areas the army protects in this consideration.

Originally posted by "ComradeOm"+--> ("ComradeOm")You mean apart from touring the country without arms?...[/b]

Is it the entire EZLN touring the country? Or Marcos and a few others? Yeah. That's what I thought. The Zapatistas have repeatedly defending their communities through violence when they are threatened by the military. And, plus, Marcos called on people to support the fight of San Salvador Atenco and Texcoco, which, lemme post a pic to remind you the context of these:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/americas_mexican_mutiny/img/8.jpg

Word.

And there I was thinking that “revolutionary” included overthrowing the state.

God, is every fucking Lennie on this board blind? Why don't you join the CL motherfuckers who refuse to read a post before trying to rebuke it? If you feel like opening your eyes for ten seconds, read the fucking link I posted earlier, particularly the section "Zapatista organization." In fact, here's the relevant section:

"Aufheben"@
The scale of the uprising is the first thing that strikes the visitor to eastern Chiapas. There are over 1,100 rebel communities, each with 300-400 people, usually young. These villages, some of which have been built since 1994, are federated into thirty-two autonomous municipalities. The civil decision-making process is fluid: local decisions are made locally, important policy or project decisions made on a wider, but not always municipal, level. Municipally, delegates from each village come together in the assembly halls that are almost as common as churches. These meetings are extremely long-winded by European standards, sometimes going on for two or three days until something like consensus is reached. This ability to reach consensus is aided by the vitality of the traditional decision-making process and which recognises the pressing demands of life under siege. The remoteness of the Indians’ lives from regular wage labour, and the communal nature of farming which in any case is labour-intensive only seasonally, enables the Zapatistas to carve out large portions of time for meetings and organising.

Now, the question is, do you think the revolution's destroying the state will be monolithic and immediate, or do you know how to pronounce the phrase dual power?

"ComradeOm"
Whereas the Zapatistas are unable to protect their communities. As a military force they have been destroyed by the government.

The Zapatista Army could not resist a full-on offense from the military. Their use of the internet as a media medium, to deflect the ability for outright repression, is well-documented by Harry Cleaver's article The Zapatistas and the Electronic Fabric of Sturggle (http://www.eco.utexas.edu/facstaff/Cleaver/zaps.html). But currently, according to the Aufheben article, a third of the army is set up in the Chiapas region -- and obviously the Zapatista communities are still autonomous, so I consider that to be protection of their communities.

The difference between FARC and EZLN is simple – the latter lost their war.

So five thousand people autonomously governing their life is a failure to you? While an army of drug runners is revolutionary? Hah.

Suddenly its Leninist to call for revolution and dismiss social-democrats? “Leninism” is not a get out of jail card for you to use anytime someone challenges your pacifist and reformist platform.

No, your glorification of FARC and idol worship of Che is why I call you a Leninist. It's not a "get our of jail card" -- it's a serious issue in the movement. You are a threat if you don't support worker self-control and instead advocate for a FARC-style revolution.

heavymanners

25th May 2006, 06:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:43 AM
idol worship of Che is why I call you a Leninist.
This is the sign at the gate of the Zapatista community I visited in Chiapas :D

http://brasil.indymedia.org/images/2005/12/340704.jpg

I get your point though. I'm actually not a fan of leftist 'idol worship' either (be it Stalin, Trotsky, Che, Mao, Lenin, Marcos, Bordiga, Negri, Bakunin, Debord or whoever). It's just another type of spectacle that can be really disempowering and unproductive, and often gets in the way of people thinking realistically and creatively about their own historical circumstances.

barista.marxista

25th May 2006, 08:00

It is a disempowering and unproductive habit amongst the "left." But, with the sign you posted, it's different. You can draw upon influence of a figure in your movement, and Emilano Zapata and Che are two huge folk figures for the indigenous people. Luxemburg's Spartacist League is another good example of this. But to hold a rebellion which you know nothing about as obviously incomparable to the works of El Che is idol worship.

How long were you studying in the Chiapas for?

heavymanners

25th May 2006, 08:28

...with the sign you posted, it's different. You can draw upon influence of a figure in your movement, and Emilano Zapata and Che are two huge folk figures for the indigenous people.

Yeah, I agree. Influence and respect for past figures and struggles is good, dogmatism, hero worship and leftist LARPing (Live Action Role-Playing) are not.

I wasn't sure earlier whether you were trying to draw a line between the Zapatistas and earlier struggles or not. They are different in a lot of ways, but there is definitely some continuity between the Zapatistas and earlier struggles and forms of organising in Latin America. Che definitely seemed pretty popular with the Zapatistas.

How long were you studying in the Chiapas for?

Just a couple of weeks. The language program is a pretty good deal - it costs 3 days of minimum wage from your home country per week of instruction (including room and board, which is pretty basic of course).

You can also go down through this group as well:

http://schoolsforchiapas.org/

Just Dave

25th May 2006, 09:29

Time people put an E on the end of FARC in my opinion

ComradeOm

25th May 2006, 10:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:26 AM
Stan Goff elaborates on this analysis in his book Full Spectrum Disorder. It's worth checking out. He uses the imperialists' own documents to make his case from a military standpoint.
Goff's work is an excellent analysis of the situation in Mexico and comparison with FARC. He's certainly a man who understands the "logic of war". I've been meaning to post a review in the Lit forum for months now.

God, is every fucking Lennie on this board blind? Why don't you join the CL motherfuckers who refuse to read a post before trying to rebuke it? If you feel like opening your eyes for ten seconds, read the fucking link I posted earlier, particularly the section "Zapatista organization."
Why don't you post the "fucking link" that shows where the Zapatistas are engaged in overthrowing the Mexican state by force of arms?

And when I say “revolutionary” that’s what I mean. Not a “revolutionary” way of thinking or a “revolutionary” organisation. Revolutionary is the capability and actions of a group towards overthrowing the established state.

Now, the question is, do you think the revolution's destroying the state will be monolithic and immediate, or do you know how to pronounce the phrase dual power?
Show me a revolution that hasn't been immediate. In fact immediacy is very much part of the definition of revolution.

The development of dual power in Ireland, France or Russia took place over a matter of months or even days during the crumbling of ruling class rule. Both the speed and challenge to the state is lacking in Mexico. I'll cheer on Basque self-rule but I'm not about to pretend that it is in any way revolutionary.

Now I have nothing against the organisation of the Chiapa communities. What does cause me to write off EZLN is the failure to combine or safeguard these developments with force of arms. I'll touch on the importance of that below.

The Zapatista Army could not resist a full-on offense from the military.
Let's be blunt - military wise the Zapatistas have been a complete failure. They failed to match the Mexican army either directly or during the low-intensity war. That automatically neuters their revolutionary capabilities.

As it is the Mexican bourgeoisie tolerates the self-governance of the Chiapa communities. I suspect they feel its simply not worth the trouble to extinguish. Either way EZLN exists on the whim of Mexico City. The Zapatistas are not a threat to the state.

Now you see my problem with Marcos’ grandstanding? All the organisation, all the self-governance, all the PR drives are worthless should the Mexican government decide to resume the war. The Zapatistas simply cannot match the state in arms. This feeds into the above comments on dual power. The only time that a strong revolutionary movement and bourgeois state co-exist is in civil war. Ultimately one must destroy the other - something that EZLN is incapable of even attempting.

Ergo they are not revolutionary.

So five thousand people autonomously governing their life is a failure to you? While an army of drug runners is revolutionary? Hah.
There are three times that number in FARC alone :rolleyes:

FARC have matched the government blow for blow for decades. As it is the government is only propped up by American funding. Vast swathes of Columbia fall under their control. That is military success and it has been possible because FARC have both the will and the support to actually fight the bourgeoisie. As it is their brief foray into bourgeois politics resulted in the deaths of hundreds/thousands of their members.

Now I'm aware that FARC actually kills people (the horror!) and so offends your liberal sensitivities but, unlike EZLN, the FARC fighters don't give a fuck about what the liberal left thinks.

And FARC's involvement in drugs extends only to taxing the farmers. It is the paramilitaries and government that run the trade. But I'm not surprised that you prefer that FARC undertake a moral crusade to rid Columbia of the "scourge" of drugs :rolleyes:

No, your glorification of FARC and idol worship of Che is why I call you a Leninist. It's not a "get our of jail card" -- it's a serious issue in the movement. You are a threat if you don't support worker self-control and instead advocate for a FARC-style revolution.
I don't idolise Che but I do recognise that he was a revolutionary - ie he spent les time posing for TV cameras and more time fighting! Ironically enough it was you that first made the comparison.

The "serious issue" with Marxism and the Left in general is between those who acknowledge violence as a necessity in establishing a socialist state and those fucking "anti-capitalist" hippies who cling to communism to give them a "radical" image. Those halfwits who somehow dream that the state will collapse on its own accord and all we have to do it sit around with the flags and bandanas. Fucking idealists

Marcos is the poster boy of this segment. He’s a failed military commander with a stylist image who looks good on shirts. The only problem is that he's not a revolutionary. That would involve bloodshed and, heavens knows, we don't want to sully such a valuable image. The LA champagne socialists might disapprove :angry:

karmaradical

25th May 2006, 22:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:11 AM

And FARC's involvement in drugs extends only to taxing the farmers. It is the paramilitaries and government that run the trade. But I'm not surprised that you prefer that FARC undertake a moral crusade to rid Columbia of the "scourge" of drugs :rolleyes:

No your wrong, id perfer a moral crusade for the FARC to stop killing and torturing the working class and peasantry. Then again, i guess sensless killing and taking profit from the drug trade is a practice us filthy "reformist liberals" need to accept as revolutionary.

Also, you critisized the Zapatistas for not having an immediate revolution at a time with very low class conciousness-but you praise the FARC! How long has the FARC been fighting, a good 6 months? Try a good 30 years.

ComradeOm

26th May 2006, 18:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:04 PM
No your wrong, id perfer a moral crusade for the FARC to stop killing and torturing the working class and peasantry.

What’s it like to blindly swallow all the lies/news that the bourgeoisie throws out?

Also, you critisized the Zapatistas for not having an immediate revolution at a time with very low class conciousness-but you praise the FARC! How long has the FARC been fighting, a good 6 months? Try a good 30 years.
Fighting a civil war compared to renouncing violence and taking part in bourgeois politics… hmmm now that’s a tough one. Which one could possibly be the more revolutionary? :huh:

barista.marxista

26th May 2006, 18:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 05:11 AM
Why don't you post the "fucking link" that shows where the Zapatistas are engaged in overthrowing the Mexican state by force of arms?
They have successfully overthrown the Mexican state in the ~1,100 autonomous communities networked across the Chiapas.

Show me a revolution that hasn't been immediate. In fact immediacy is very much part of the definition of revolution.

You don't understand historical materialism. Revolutions don't happen immediately. If this is part of your understanding of a revolution, then we could call FARC far less revolutionary than the EZLN.

What does cause me to write off EZLN is the failure to combine or safeguard these developments with force of arms.

How would they communities be autonomous if they had not fought off military presence in them, and safeguarded them for over a decade? Logical fallacy.

Let's be blunt - military wise the Zapatistas have been a complete failure. They failed to match the Mexican army either directly or during the low-intensity war. That automatically neuters their revolutionary capabilities.

Then how were the ~1,100 communities liberated? How have they stayed liberated? Again, you are being reductionist in that you do not realize that the EZ is comprised of members of the autonomous communities, and as such does not serve as an offensive organization (if they did, they would be crushed), but instead as a defender of the communities themselves. This has been demonstrated many times.

The Zapatistas are not a threat to the state.

Then why is 1/3 of the Mexican military stationed in the Chiapas?

Now I'm aware that FARC actually kills people (the horror!) and so offends your liberal sensitivities but, unlike EZLN, the FARC fighters don't give a fuck about what the liberal left thinks.

Ad hominem. Why would I support the San Salvador Atenco/Texcoco rebellions if I didn't support killing people? You're making baseless accusations.

So far your judgment of the Zapatistas consists of these points:

1. They are not on the offensive at this moment.

How about FARC's peace process starting in 1998? They began demilitarization -- and resumed it later. So obviously realizing when revolutionary offensives are practical is an important part of revolutionary tactics.

2. They're non-violent.

Simply baseless. See above posts for details.

3. They're not big enough. (?)

You keep louding that FARC has thrice the members of the Zapatista communities. Well, ten years after the initialization of FARC's war, how many members did they have?

4. The autonomous model is not revolutionary.

Revolutionary models reflect the eras in which their revolutions are many. The Zapatista model of revolution is a reflection of the neoliberal era where accumulation by dispossession is the predominant capitalist mode. We're not based in an understanding of capitalism from 1917 anymore. There are new ways of resistance, because there are new ways subservience is imposed on us.

ComradeOm

26th May 2006, 20:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 05:46 PM
They have successfully overthrown the Mexican state in the ~1,100 autonomous communities networked across the Chiapas.
Break out the red flags! The global revolution begins in Chiapas today :rolleyes:

As I said, the Mexican government tolerates the limited self-rule of the Chiapas. But do you honestly think that these communities would last a week should Mexico City decide that enough was enough? There is nothing revolutionary about living at the whim of the central government.

You don't understand historical materialism. Revolutions don't happen immediately. If this is part of your understanding of a revolution, then we could call FARC far less revolutionary than the EZLN.
Yes. They do. Show me a revolution that takes over a decade and involves renouncing arms and not trying to overthrow the state.

How would they communities be autonomous if they had not fought off military presence in them, and safeguarded them for over a decade? Logical fallacy.
Need I repeat it again? What does the government lose by allowing the communities some form of self-rule? Indeed their tolerance has collapsed the entire independence movement into a political sideshow. Well, more a travelling circus actually.

Then how were the ~1,100 communities liberated? How have they stayed liberated? Again, you are being reductionist in that you do not realize that the EZ is comprised of members of the autonomous communities, and as such does not serve as an offensive organization (if they did, they would be crushed), but instead as a defender of the communities themselves. This has been demonstrated many times.
Demonstrated as at Acteal?

The Zapatistas do not have the military might to face the government. That much has been made perfectly clear over the past 15 years.

Then why is 1/3 of the Mexican military stationed in the Chiapas?
So they can crush the communities whenever they feel like it.

1. They are not on the offensive at this moment.

How about FARC's peace process starting in 1998? They began demilitarization -- and resumed it later. So obviously realizing when revolutionary offensives are practical is an important part of revolutionary tactics.
And there I was assuming that the fighting currently ongoing in Columbia was merely political manoeuvring :o

2. They're non-violent.

Simply baseless. See above posts for details.
I’d like to think that my opinions on pacifist reactionary shits is fairly well known on this forum. See any one of the violence/non-violence threads for details.

Though I’d be interested in hearing how you feel that a non-violent group can possibly be revolutionary. Maybe it’s a “revolution of the mind”, man :rolleyes:

3. They're not big enough. (?)

You keep louding that FARC has thrice the members of the Zapatista communities. Well, ten years after the initialization of FARC's war, how many members did they have?
Was this before or after the TV tour of Columbia?

Size really isn’t an issue. But its interesting to compare the relative size of the two organisations to gauge their strength and support.

4. The autonomous model is not revolutionary.

Revolutionary models reflect the eras in which their revolutions are many. The Zapatista model of revolution is a reflection of the neoliberal era where accumulation by dispossession is the predominant capitalist mode. We're not based in an understanding of capitalism from 1917 anymore. There are new ways of resistance, because there are new ways subservience is imposed on us.
Bullshit :angry:

Overthrowing the capitalism and the state is always revolutionary. Furthermore it’s the only gauge of an organisation’s revolutionary standards. What we see in Mexico is a group too weak to do this. As a result they have to fall back on bourgeois politics and civil action.

Now I have three questions for you on this.

*Do you honestly think that there is even the remotest of possibilities that the current Zapatista programme can lead to revolution in Mexico?

*What is it about the current EZLN media tour that it somehow doesn’t translate as “reformist nonsense” in your mind?

*Do you think that armed revolution is no longer viable today? As you point out its not 1917 after more.

barista.marxista

26th May 2006, 21:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:46 PM
*Do you honestly think that there is even the remotest of possibilities that the current Zapatista programme can lead to revolution in Mexico?

*What is it about the current EZLN media tour that it somehow doesn’t translate as “reformist nonsense” in your mind?

*Do you think that armed revolution is no longer viable today? As you point out its not 1917 after more.
As you have conveniently chosen to simply repeat what has already been said, I'll save myself the effort and just address your final questions:

* Yes, because they're growing. They're entirely in the vein of the councilist and autonomist movements before them, while being based exclusively in the lived experiences of the indigenous people. I do not think the exact method of Zapatista organization is a universally applicable paradigm. But the autonomy embodied in their organization is.

* How don't you understand that the La Otra campaign is encouraging people not to vote, decrying the political system and calling for people to take community control? Where does reformism come into that.

* Again, you're making baseless ad hominem attacks. I have never, ever claimed that pacifism is anything but reactionary. Are you fucking blind? Please let me know where I have abandoned violence, and I'll take you seriously from now on.

ComradeOm

2nd June 2006, 14:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 08:10 PM
As you have conveniently chosen to simply repeat what has already been said, I'll save myself the effort and just address your final questions:
And I’ll continue to do so until I can hammer it home that the Zapatistas are not revolutionary.

Yes, because they're growing. They're entirely in the vein of the councilist and autonomist movements before them, while being based exclusively in the lived experiences of the indigenous people. I do not think the exact method of Zapatista organization is a universally applicable paradigm. But the autonomy embodied in their organization is.
So the renunciation of armed revolution is aimed at attracting new members to the fold? Really, I’m curious.

And to forestall the likely rejection of the term "renunciation of armed revolution" I'll back it up with their own words...
The EZLN maintains its commitment to an offensive ceasefire, and it will not make any attack against government forces or any offensive military movements.

How don't you understand that the La Otra campaign is encouraging people not to vote, decrying the political system and calling for people to take community control? Where does reformism come into that.
Can you really not see this? By asking people not to vote EZLN has become just another facet of Mexican politics. This is a result of their refusal to directly challenge the state and reliance on civil and media action. At its simplest – reformism is co-operation with the bourgeois state. I really can’t make it any more basic than that.

As for La Otra, one phrase is all I need to discount it - “political struggle through this peaceful initiative”.

Again, you're making baseless ad hominem attacks. I have never, ever claimed that pacifism is anything but reactionary. Are you fucking blind? Please let me know where I have abandoned violence, and I'll take you seriously from now on.
Baseless? Hardly considering that I did not mention pacifism but dealt with revolution. You support the current Zapatista program. This involves a “political struggle through this peaceful initiative”. What the fuck am I supposed to think?

EZLN does not challenge the state through force of arms. It has in fact discarded this as a viable strategy altogether. And yet you insist that this movement is revolutionary with the potential to overthrow the state. You throw around terms like "autonomist" as if its ground breaking or somehow excuses a reformist platform that does not challenge the state. Its nice to see but not revoultion Which is exactly the reason why EZLN have become so popular with the champagne socialists and limousine liberals.

The Grey Blur

2nd June 2006, 21:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:30 PM
And I’ll continue to do so until I can hammer it home that the Zapatistas are not revolutionary
So this entire argument wasn't about the Zapatista's policies or anything constructive like that, it was about the definition of the word 'revolutionary'

We do have dictionaries for this type of thing comrade

BTW - Wouldn't it be fair to say that a Zapatista "revolution" would be counter-productive as the autonomous communities would be wiped out

ComradeOm

2nd June 2006, 21:56

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 2 2006, 08:50 PM
So this enture argument wasn't about the Zapatistas policies or anything constructive like that, it was about the meaning of the word 'revolutionary'

Which is probably the stumbling block here. Call me crazy but I expect revolution to involve the armed overthrowing of the state. That's revolution.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that a Zapatista "revolution" would be counter-productive as the autonomous communities would be wiped out
Well its not even an option any more given the victory of the Mexican military. Unfortunate but there you go.

barista.marxista

4th June 2006, 07:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:30 AM
So the renunciation of armed revolution is aimed at attracting new members to the fold? Really, I’m curious.
You cannot even fathom of anything being revolutionary except a vanguard, can you? The EZLN is not a vanguard, it's not claiming any leadership in the class war. It's a defensive army protecting the communities which have already liberated themselves, and who are now autonomous from the state. They're not liberating others -- others have to liberate themselves, for themselves. That's what the EZLN that you call the entirety of Zapatistas call for.

Can you really not see this? By asking people not to vote EZLN has become just another facet of Mexican politics. This is a result of their refusal to directly challenge the state and reliance on civil and media action. At its simplest – reformism is co-operation with the bourgeois state. I really can’t make it any more basic than that.

So you think calling for people to resist capitalism's imposition of the social-factory is "cooperation with the bourgeois state", and "reformism"? What the fuck?

And yet you insist that this movement is revolutionary with the potential to overthrow the state. You throw around terms like "autonomist" as if its ground breaking or somehow excuses a reformist platform that does not challenge the state

Taking community control, resisting work and self-valorisation are reformism? How are they seeking to reform the state, when they're about abandoning it and imposing worker control? Are you daft? You don't understand what I mean when I say "autonomism (http://www.phillyraan.net/cleaverinterview.html)", because you're so fucking dogmatic you can't even conceive of anything being revolutionary unless it's a centralized vanguard party.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that a Zapatista "revolution" would be counter-productive as the autonomous communities would be wiped out

So the workers cannot defend themselves, and your vanguard should go defend them instead? That's not Marxist, that's liberalism.

Nicky Scarfo

4th June 2006, 08:39

I’m sure you’d be much happier on a liberal site where people fawn over “anti-globalisation” heroes that don’t fire a shot.

Uh-huh, and just how many shots have YOU fired?

ComradeOm

4th June 2006, 13:58

Originally posted by barista.marxista+Jun 4 2006, 06:52 AM--> (barista.marxista @ Jun 4 2006, 06:52 AM)You cannot even fathom of anything being revolutionary except a vanguard, can you? The EZLN is not a vanguard, it's not claiming any leadership in the class war. [/b]
Enough with the strawmen and red herrings. You and I know that this is not a matter of vanguards but rather the basic tenet of revolution – armed insurrection against the state. My sole problem with EZLN is that they fail do precisely that.

It's a defensive army protecting the communities which have already liberated themselves, and who are now autonomous from the state. They're not liberating others -- others have to liberate themselves, for themselves. That's what the EZLN that you call the entirety of Zapatistas call for.
And that’s all I wanted. They are a militia designed to protect their communities, correct?

So you think calling for people to resist capitalism's imposition of the social-factory is "cooperation with the bourgeois state", and "reformism"? What the fuck?
Given the military failures of EZLN and the corresponding success of the Mexican military it seems clear that the state tolerates the Zapatistas. Why I’m not exactly sure… but I suspect it has something to do with Marcos parading about on TV and tours rather than fight.

I’ll give you another chance to explain just how “political struggle through this peaceful initiative” is not reformist.

Taking community control, resisting work and self-valorisation are reformism? How are they seeking to reform the state, when they're about abandoning it and imposing worker control? Are you daft? You don't understand what I mean when I say "autonomism", because you're so fucking dogmatic you can't even conceive of anything being revolutionary unless it's a centralized vanguard party.
Again with the Leninist bogyman :rolleyes:

I’m all for the organisation of the peasants in Mexico and I’m all for their efforts of self-rule. What I cannot excuse is the fact that EZLN is no longer a threat to the state but rather forms a fringe element of it.

So the workers cannot defend themselves, and your vanguard should go defend them instead? That's not Marxist, that's liberalism.
It must be great not being a fan of Lenin. If stuck all you need do is shout “vanguard” as loud as you can. You’ve used it four times in the last post alone. Let go of the panic button.

But there is a point in that statement trying to get out. You say that EZLN is a militia drawn from the peasants to protect their societies. Now I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt due to the admirable self-control and governance exercised by the peasant communities. But EZLN itself is just another group seeking regional autonomy through political means. Not a million miles away from the PIRA or ETA. So is it liberal? Yes.

Why do you think they are so popular with the limousine liberals and petit-bourgeois left?

Nicky Scarfo
Uh-huh, and just how many shots have YOU fired?
Read.

“where people fawn over "anti-globalisation" heroes that don’t fire a shot.”

In hindsight I should have probably used “who” but there you go. EZLN, with their aversion to Marxist rhetoric or actual armed struggle in favour of media tours, appeal to the middle-class anti-capitalist types that haunt coffee shops. Its much easier than actually waging a class war.

Messiah

5th June 2006, 04:23

“where people fawn over "anti-globalisation" heroes that don’t fire a shot.”

Read.

Uh-huh, and just how many shots have YOU fired?

If you are criticizing people who have never fired a shot, I take it you sleep with an AK-47 at least? Right? Or is this just another case of a guy sitting behind his computer talking big about violence and the revolution? I think the answer is pretty clear.

The Grey Blur

5th June 2006, 11:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:24 AM

“where people fawn over "anti-globalisation" heroes that don’t fire a shot.”

Read.

Uh-huh, and just how many shots have YOU fired?

If you are criticizing people who have never fired a shot, I take it you sleep with an AK-47 at least? Right? Or is this just another case of a guy sitting behind his computer talking big about violence and the revolution? I think the answer is pretty clear.
Since when has it been neccessary to carry out the activities of the people you are commenting on

I can say "Viva Che" and I don't have to go about the countryside sparking revolution

Messiah

5th June 2006, 12:39

Oh, I agree. But that guy is attacking people who don't believe in violence in the first place, as if there was something evil about pacifism. We may disagree whether or not revolution can be achieved along peaceful means, but that guy comes across as this hardened street warrior which frankly I think is total BS.

At least most pacifists have hands on experience with their theory. I don't think too many violence advocates do. Again, not to say a violent revolution is wrong or right, that's not the point. But just because someone doesn't subscribe to violence does not make them any less revolutionary. And to be "taken to task" on the fact by someone who also has "never fired a shot" is just idiotic.

Dundee_United

6th June 2006, 13:12

"Now you see my problem with Marcos’ grandstanding? All the organisation, all the self-governance, all the PR drives are worthless should the Mexican government decide to resume the war. The Zapatistas simply cannot match the state in arms. This feeds into the above comments on dual power."

Yes. Hence the other campagin. At present the balance of forces is such that the Zapatista communities exist because it is not to the sum benefit of the Mexican state to crush them and because the Mexican ruling class are split over how to deal with them. The other campaign is about building up grassroots strength and uniting with other workers and peasants in struggle, be they Magonists (as in Atenco I think), syndicalists or other indigenist forces. Standing in an election gets you nowhere from this perspective. Surely your educationals will have told you its important to have a people's movement before you can have a Lenist vanguard-party to lead it?

"EZLN, with their aversion to Marxist rhetoric"

EZLN are Marxists; their origins are Marxist-Leninist. You clearly haven't read much about them.

"They are a militia designed to protect their communities, correct?"

Yes. Nothing wrong with that tho. In the sense in which you're using 'revolution' the Zapatistas are not 'revolutionary', however that's because you're a tanky. I'm critical of the EZLN and the way in which they have united liberals and liberal-anarchos across the world by basically misleading people as to their true intentions and origins, however I completely understand and support why they have done this. As you point they lost their war in the first days of their insurrection. However I have nothing but respect for the Zapatistas (it's important to separate the two, something your tanky logic perhaps won't understand). They have built a beautiful thing - socialism - on the fragilest of eggshells.

"I’ll give you another chance to explain just how “political struggle through this peaceful initiative” is not reformist."

What does reformist mean in this context? It's a bizarre tanky insult given that you were advocating giving that you seemed to echo support others were giving to the left coalition, which is absolutely a reformist, nationalist project.

In the absence of a popular movement arguing for direct democracy and communism what is 'reformist' about trying to build one?

"EZLN itself is just another group seeking regional autonomy through political means. Not a million miles away from the PIRA or ETA. So is it liberal? Yes."

Don't really think it's comparable to PIRA, or to ETA as neither of those groups operate as the militia forces of confederation of communes, do they? There is a certain tangential point of reference however that their existence as a separate sphere, an 'otherness' in their respective states causes problems for the ruling ideology in their regions. It's that dual power thing. That however is true of all sorts of ideological groupings, from Hamas when the PA was PLO controlled to , as you correctly point out, groups like the FARC. Beyond that tho they have little or nothing in common.

"Why do you think they are so popular with the limousine liberals and petit-bourgeois left?"

They have excellent propaganda and have effectively duped a lot of people into thinking that not only are they not Marxists (which they blatantly are) but that they are some sort of cultural project for Mayans or something. Marcos writes some flowery words and patter and out come the cheque books from the liberal left. it has been a very effective, yet existentially important, strategy for them.