EZLN

[Comrade C.A.]

what is it and I've been seeing pictures of someone known as Sub-Commandante Marcos smoking a pipe, who is he?

[rioters bloc]

marcos is the main spokesperson for the zapatista army of national liberation in chiapas, mejico.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Ya Basta!
The Zapatistas are creating a social revolution in southern Mexico. They're fighting for the rights of indigenious natives and other low class mexicans.


www.EZLN.org (http://www.EZLN.org)

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 09:34 PM
Ya Basta!
The Zapatistas are creating a social revolution in southern Mexico. They're fighting for the rights of indigenious natives and other low class mexicans.


www.EZLN.org (http://www.EZLN.org)
What does Ya Basta mean? Or just Basta in general i brought this up in a nother thread but didnt seem to get many answers.

[Phalanx]

Ya Basta means enough.

[More Fire for the People]

Ya basta means 'enough is enough'.

[violencia.Proletariat]

The EZLN is the army of the Zapatistas. It retains hierarchy, thereby defeating a real control over it by the people.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Comrade C.A.+Aug 29 2006, 01:10 AM--> (Comrade C.A. @ Aug 29 2006, 01:10 AM) what is it and I've been seeing pictures of someone known as Sub-Commandante Marcos smoking a pipe, who is he? [/b]

Originally posted by [email protected]
The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN) is an armed revolutionary group based in Chiapas, one of the poorest states of Mexico. Their social base is mostly indigenous but they have supporters in urban areas as well as an international web of support. Their most visible voice, although not their leader, is Subcomandante Marcos (currently a.k.a. Delegate Zero in relation to the "Other Campaign"). Unlike the Zapatista comandantes, Subcomandante Marcos is not an indigenous Mayan.

Some consider the Zapatista movement the first "post-modern" revolution: an armed, yet non-violent (despite an uprising in the early 1990s) revolutionary group that incorporates modern technologies like satellite telephones and the internet as a way to obtain domestic and foreign support. They consider themselves part of the wider anti-globalization, anti-neoliberalism movement.

Wikipedia EZLN article link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EZLN)


Wikipedia
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos (allegedly born June 19, 1957 in Tampico, Tamaulipas, Mexico), also known as Delegado Zero in matters concerning the Other Campaign, describes himself as the spokesperson for the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) but, due to his prominence in the EZLN, he is considered by many to be one of its main leaders.

Wikipedia Subcomandate Marcos article link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcomandante_Marcos)

[Labor Shall Rule]

Does EZLN have any kind of nationalistic overtones? I have noticed that the group seems to only focus on the indigenous section of the working class in the Chiapas province.

[Leo]

Does EZLN have any kind of nationalistic overtones? I have noticed that the group seems to only focus on the indigenous section of the working class in the Chiapas province.


Originally posted by [email protected] Third Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle, January 1995
Today, we repeat: OUR STRUGGLE IS NATIONAL

EZLN is a nationalist organization, they carry mexican flags, they sing the national anthdem etc. Here's a link with a few good articles criticizing them:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54799

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:50 AM
Does EZLN have any kind of nationalistic overtones? I have noticed that the group seems to only focus on the indigenous section of the working class in the Chiapas province.
Good question.

If you read the 6th Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle (the most recent statement from the EZLN) there is definitely plenty of material that can be considered as nationalistic. Mexico is referred to as the "patria", nationalisation of industry is defended as a way of ensuring foreigners are kept from owning what is "Mexican", the need for a new constitution is mentioned etc. The writings of the Zapatistas are occasionally fairly ambiguous, but I don't think you're reading too much into it to say that nationalism is certainly an element of their approach.

However, they do also speak about breaking down national borders and boundaries, so clearly do not see nationalism as the end state of affairs. Mind you, its fair to ask whether acceptance of national borders for any period is a truly revolutionary perspective (a very important question). To my mind the issue of nationalism in the 6th Declaration is certainly problematic - the important question becomes one of whether this problem can be overcome as the struggle continues, hence raising questions about the extent to which the struggle is truly from below and from the left. Obviously this also raises lots of other important questions.

There are a number of those who generally support the Zapatistas (primarily among anarchists and autonomists) who find the nationalistic references difficult and would want them removed. It's certainly a very important question to raise and one that should be criticially examined and not fudged. There's been a recent book out on the Zapatistas (by Mentinis) which deals with the issue of nationalism in some depth which I'm hoping might help clarify my own thinking on the issue somewhat once I get hold of it. Certainly its not an issue that I really want to go into detail on at the moment until I've had a look at a few more things, but may well comment on other posts if anything interesting crops up and if I get enough time...

In terms of the focus of the Zapatista action, there has been a continual widening out of the Zapatistas struggle. Back in 1994 they were very much concerned with indigenous issues relating to the Mayans in Chiapas although, even then, to say that they "only focus on the indigenous section of the working class in the Chiapas province" would have been wide of the mark. However, there has been a continual widening of the struggle, with an acceptance that the Zapatista struggle needs to be linked to other struggles as well - hence, the Other Campaign and it's attempt to forge links between all those against capitalism (from below and the left) in Mexico and, indeed, abroad. It's important to note that the Zapatistas aren't really seeking to lead a homogenous "working class" against capital, but trying to seek ways that different groups struggling against capitalism can link their struggles (kind of similar to the "circularity of struggles" idea that's common in autonomist marxism and the rejection of the traditional party form that some "orthodox" Marxists employ).

PS Leo - thanks for the posts you put up earlier. I'd actually read a few of the articles on the ICC site a week or so ago but will try and look at them in more depth later. Much appreciated!

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 10:05 PM
The EZLN is the army of the Zapatistas. It retains hierarchy, thereby defeating a real control over it by the people.
oh come on

If you call the EZLN hierarchic then the CNT-militias were hierarchic as well.

[Leo]

If you call the EZLN hierarchic then the CNT-militias were hierarchic as well.

Actually CNT did become oppressive, the notable Anarchist faction during the Spanish Civil War was the "Friends of Durruti", CNT sold out.

[Devrim]

On the question of the Zapatista's nationalism here is an English copy of a letter that I wrote to the Turkish autonomists earlier this year:


Originally posted by Devrim
Following our discussion in the café after the anti-war demonstration, I wanted to point out a few things about the Zapatisata movement in Mexico.

Firstly I claimed that they were ‘left nationalists’, and you disagreed. Well, even if you disagree to discount their name EZLN (National Liberation Zapatista Army), which I think gives us a bit of a clue, you only have to look at their communiqués to see that they are basically a nationalist grouping.

Lets for example take the sixth communiqué issued in the run up to the 1996 elections, which calls for “...a full and coordinated defence of national sovereignty, through intransigent opposition to the privatisation of electrical energy, oil, water and natural resources.”, or when they continue to say that “And they also say they are going to privatise, or rather sell to foreigners, the businesses that the State once used to help the people's welfare.” Maybe you failed to notice the ‘defence of national sovereignty’, or the fact that their objection to ‘selling to foreigners’ seems to be the main point of disagreement. Of course if all the owners were ‘good Mexican capitalists’ they would obviously continue to ‘use these businesses to help the peoples welfare’. Of course maybe we are wrong, but when we hear them promoting the "defense of national sovereignty" and talking about the "fatherland", it leads us to believe that our original conclusions were right. And just maybe, there was actually a bit of a clue to this in their name. Of course the fact that they regularly sing the Mexican national anthem at their meetings should give us a clue too.

Then we discussed their activity, and one of your comrades claimed that we can support them whereas we could not support the Maoist guerillas in Nepal. I asked why, and you answer was that it was about the form of their struggle, and about how they instituted ‘direct democracy’ in the areas that they had liberated. I replied that you have to look beyond the mere form of a movement, and to look at its content. As far as I know in the areas that they have taken over, they have made no attempt to destroy capitalist relations. Their programme is one of redistributing land, and defending nationalized industries, which is quite natural for a group that has its background in the Che Guevara inspired Fuerzas de Nacional Liberacion (Forces of National Liberation, FLN). You replied that the form, and content of a movement are indivisible, but direct democracy is possible within capitalism. Look at the Swiss commune system if you need an example. There are parts of what seems to be the democratic programme, which are intrinsic to communism, meetings of workers where everybody can have their say for example, but there are also times when minorities of workers act on their own outside of the bourgeois democratic process. In the English miners strike workers went from pit to pit on ‘flying pickets’ appealing directly to other workers to come out, and support them. The importance of a movement is judged by its content. Is it a struggle, which brings workers together in their own interests, is it a movement towards the proletariat being ‘a class for itself’. If I thought that either the Zapatistas, or the Maoist rebels in Nepal were this sort of movement, I would support them. I don’t believe this about either of them, so I support neither of them.

Finally you claimed that capitalism is what defines these classes, and we have to overcome that. This was in response to my question ’what is the revolutionary class within society’. Yes, of course capital divides society into classes, but this is a reality. The only way that we can destroy the class system is to destroy the system, which perpetuates it, capitalism. And the only way to do that is through working class revolution.

I have tried to present your opinions here honestly without distorting them, and to explain My objections to them.

In solidarity,

Devrim Valerian

EKS

[Marion]

Thanks for the post Dev.

Just a quick thought. If we say that class consciousness can be raised through class struggle and therefore that inherent in the class struggle is the acceptance that the content of our struggle may change, as consciousness develops, then is it enough to automatically say that we do not support a certain group simply because its current content is not the one we would ideally like it to have? If it has the "correct" form and is involved in genuine struggle (albeit misplaced with regards to certain elements) might it's content not develop? If so, what is our position to be - to wait until it develops or to support it in the hope that it develops? Is it a black-and-white, take-it-or-leave-it issue or the classic fudge of shades of grey? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?!

Any thoughts?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 29 2006, 10:29 PM

If you call the EZLN hierarchic then the CNT-militias were hierarchic as well.

Actually CNT did become oppressive, the notable Anarchist faction during the Spanish Civil War was the "Friends of Durruti", CNT sold out.
i know, the leadership that is. "Anarcho-statists" :lol: who ever thought that possible.

but i was talking about the militias

[razboz]

The actual Zapatista movement is not Marxist, or anarchist or any other "accepted" western revolutionary ideology. At the begining they were Maoists this is true, but in between 1984 and the uprising 1993-4 they shifted their policies to suit the local population in their base communities. They incorporated a lot of liberation ideology, and were supported by supporters of the Catholic Chirch. Sup. MArcos, the man with the pipe attended a jesuite school before becoming a full-time revolutionary. The Zapatista struggle is one for land and equality, not one for socialism and i think this is a primordial distinction to make.

The actual structure of the EZLN is very traditional top-bottom military. At the bottom you get foot soldiers and at the top you get the Zapatista High Command,. which theoretically should be the Revolutionary Commitee, in conjuncture with the Good Government Juntas, themselves elected by the people who take decisions, ratified by popular vote. In practice Marcos decides, as he has become the true figure head of the Zapatistas and no one really contradicts him. For example the head committee wanted to postpone the uprosing for a year. Commandate Herman i beleive wanted to wait until the forces were fully equiped and ready to defeat the Federal Army. MArcos however felt otherwise and wanted to seize the intiative, as the government knew of the Zapatista activities very well but decided to act. Sub COmmandante Marcos through his charismatic speaches and so on won over the hearts and the minds of some Mexicans, while virtually all the other leaders fell into darkness.

Im not sure if thats all too detailed and answers a question any one asked any point in time.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by marion
Thanks for the post Dev.

Just a quick thought. If we say that class consciousness can be raised through class struggle and therefore that inherent in the class struggle is the acceptance that the content of our struggle may change, as consciousness develops, then is it enough to automatically say that we do not support a certain group simply because its current content is not the one we would ideally like it to have? If it has the "correct" form and is involved in genuine struggle (albeit misplaced with regards to certain elements) might it's content not develop? If so, what is our position to be - to wait until it develops or to support it in the hope that it develops? Is it a black-and-white, take-it-or-leave-it issue or the classic fudge of shades of grey? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?!

I think that you are confusing two different issues. There are struggles that we do support. These are the struggles of the working class. It doesn't neccesarily mean that we support the organisations that are involved in running these struggles. Let me give an example. At the moment in Turkey there seems to be a possibility of a strike in the state sector. This would be a very radical move as strikes by public sector worker here are illegal. If the strike happens, or if there is any struggle such as overtime bans, work to rules in the public sector, we will of course support them. However, this does not mean that we support the yellow unions. I personally find the sea of national flags on their demonstrations quite repulsive. Of course, we have to start from where the working class is at the moment. That means that we support workers struggles for their own interests, but that we also point out the dangers of alligning with any sectors of the bourgoise. The workers struggle is the important thing. This is based around the needs of the class. At times this will be 'represented' by various capitalist 'leftist' groups, which we would oppose.

On the point of the struggles in Mexico. There may well be actions of workers that we would support there, but that doesn't mean that we support the political organisations involved in them.

Devrim