The Ideology Of The Ezln

[Aurora]

As far as im aware they do not claim to be a mainstream current of communism.I read a quote that said something like "the vanguard parties can fuck off" so im guessing they are not Leninist! :lol:

So are they close to a particular group of Anarchists?

[More Fire for the People]

The EZLN is multi-tendency. The some are reformists, some are post-modern anarchists ,and some are other forms of leftism. Marcos is supposedly influenced by Gramsci who was an Italian Marxist-Leninist that said Bolshevik-vanguardism was only necessary in the Russian historical condition and that Western Marxist must establish a counter-hegemony to bourgeois hegemony. I would say establishing a counter-hegemony is something Marcos does.

[Aurora]

Do you know anything about how they are organised?Im finding it difecult to get information due to the language barrier.

I have alot of respect for them :wub:

[Janus]

Do you know anything about how they are organised?
There was a thread on this not too long ago in which different books were recommended concerning the group.

I'll try to dig them up.

[Janus]

This seems to be the last one.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53736

[Marion]

Yep, its pretty hard to pin down any particular ideology of the Zapatistas. Marcos' writing is very entertaining and uses simple language, but does not set out to explain a detailed worldview as he is only the spokesperson for the Zapatistas rather that someone writing political commentary.

I'd argue that the Zapatistas do not set out to constitute a counter-hegemony in the Gramscian sense. Rather its easier to see them as trying to avoid constituting a hegemony at all as this implies a need to define themselves according to the current political hegemony and seek to make a counter-power.

PS I'd also just clarify that the EZLN is the Zapatista army and does not = the Zapatistas themselves.

[which doctor]

I've heard them described as autonomous marxists before.

[Delta]

There's a documentary about them named A Place Called Chiapas, but it doesn't get into the idealogy too much, so I wouldn't recommend it for those who are interested in that.

[ComradeOm]

My thoughts on the reformist Zapatistas (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50345&hl=)

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:41 PM
Do you know anything about how they are organised?Im finding it difecult to get information due to the language barrier.

I have alot of respect for them :wub:
Anarchist POV stuff:

Here (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/anarchist.html)

and (from this site):

An anarchist view of the EZLN (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/rbr1_abezln.html)

And on how they organise:
What is it that is different about the Zapatistas? (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/comment/andrew_diff_feb01.html)

[blake 3:17]

Several threads run through Zapatismo -- the old Zapatismo, Guevarism, liberation theology, anrchism, marxism.

When the rebellion happened Mrcos and Co. didn't expect to last, but they have, and have changed Latin American politics for the much better.

Last year's Neo-Zapitismo. (http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article832&var_recherche=ezln)

[YSR]

I believe that Marcos described himself as an "urban vanguardist Maoist" before he joined them, then he said he "started listening."

I think they are very much anarchists, if not in every element of agreement with traditional anarchist practice.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 5 2006, 09:18 PM
I believe that Marcos described himself as an "urban vanguardist Maoist" before he joined them, then he said he "started listening."

I think they are very much anarchists, if not in every element of agreement with traditional anarchist practice.
Yeah, a couple of things Marcos has said recently makes it clear he thinks they have more in common with anarchist principles (or autonomist Marxist ones) than anything else.

However, one of the important elements is the emphasis on process (e.g. listening as well as acting as part of the ongoing "Other Campaign") and the fact that much of the Zapatista way of thinking comes from the indigenous people in Chiapas and their history rather than contemplation of Marxist or Anarchist traditions.

[Aurora]

Thanks for all the info guys :)

The more i read about them the more i like them,I still find it amazing that they demanded autonomy and actualy got it :o who would have thought the mexican gov would be such push overs :P

[violencia.Proletariat]

I wasn't aware anarchists had militaries :rolleyes:

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:50 AM
Thanks for all the info guys :)

The more i read about them the more i like them,I still find it amazing that they demanded autonomy and actualy got it :o who would have thought the mexican gov would be such push overs :P
push overs?

well they sure had to fight for it ;)


I wasn't aware anarchists had militaries

They dont

They have people-controlled militias.

as is the EZLN :wub:

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:50 AM
who would have thought the mexican gov would be such push overs :P
Push overs? You are aware that EZLN lost almost every encounter with the Mexican military?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by nate
I wasn't aware anarchists had militaries

The EZLN are not 'anarchists', they're not anything specific, they merely draw on anarchist principles of organising etc., they're anarchistic in some ways they're not actually 'anarchists'- but seriously, why does it matter?

[Aurora]

Push overs? You are aware that EZLN lost almost every encounter with the Mexican military?
I am aware of that,so why didnt the gov order their destruction?Isnt it a drain on mexico's resources to have chiapas autonomous?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 01:15 PM
I am aware of that,so why didnt the gov order their destruction?Isnt it a drain on mexico's resources to have chiapas autonomous?
I can only summarise that the dirt poor nature of the Chiapas means that keeping it under total government control is more trouble than its worth. Just be aware that these "autonomous" communities live and breathe at the government's whim.

[rebelworker]

The Zapatista Movement is just that, a mas movement of indigenous people living in their traditional ways and organised through directly democratic community based councils.

The Zapatista Army (EZLN) was started by a handfull of Maoists as a sort of missionary project (much like che in Bolivia), who realised they had more to learn from the locals than vice versa.

THE EZLN is directly responsible to the community organisations. There is no Party or revolutionary organisation involved so no real ideological curent. The conciousness is of the new generations of militants who grew up after the uprising is certainly much more overtly internationalist and anti capitalist than the original indigenous soverinist basis for the original uprising.

In practice they are now much closer to anarchism or council communism than maoism.

As mentioned above, the reason they havnt been wiped out is a mix of the lack of important resources in the area, but more and more the popular support they have with the general population of the country cannot be underestimated. When they show up in Mexico city, litterally hundreds of thousands of people come out to welcome them.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:35 AM
I wasn't aware anarchists had militaries :rolleyes:
Anarchists certainly had armed forces in Spain, during the spanish civil war.

[emma_goldman]

I think the best thing to do would be to read their Sixth Declaration. ;)

You can find it online, it's less than 10 pages long I think.

[Aurora]

I think the best thing to do would be to read their Sixth Declaration.
Will do ;)

[violencia.Proletariat]

They dont

They have people-controlled militias.

as is the EZLN :wub:

They are not militias, as in the EZLN The Zapatista National Liberation Army

And how do you know their "people controlled"? If you watch a place called chiapas you will see the zapatistas don't arm their people, they arm their military force. A big NO NO! It's not a peoples army/militia until you arm the people/militia and let them decide how to defen themselves. The EZLN leadership was not willing to defend refugees being attacked by the paramilitaries because they were worried about their ceasefire. Just goes to show you how "libertarian" the EZLN/Zapatistas are.


the EZLN are not 'anarchists', they're not anything specific, they merely draw on anarchist principles of organising etc., they're anarchistic in some ways they're not actually 'anarchists'- but seriously, why does it matter?

I didn't call them anarchists. Read! Some else had and I made a sarcastic response.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:36 PM
The EZLN leadership was not willing to defend refugees being attacked by the paramilitaries because they were worried about their ceasefire. Just goes to show you how "libertarian" the EZLN/Zapatistas are.
I suppose we libertarians do have a tendency to opt for martyrdom over strategic use of force...

[Marion]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Aug 7 2006, 09:58 AM--> (black banner black gun @ Aug 7 2006, 09:58 AM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 10:36 PM
The EZLN leadership was not willing to defend refugees being attacked by the paramilitaries because they were worried about their ceasefire. Just goes to show you how "libertarian" the EZLN/Zapatistas are.
I suppose we libertarians do have a tendency to opt for martyrdom over strategic use of force... [/b]
Would be interested to read more about this incident if anyone has any links...