Mexico leftist to create parallel gov't

[Guest1]

Mexico leftist to create parallel gov't (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/mexico_elections&printer=1)

By MARK STEVENSON, Associated Press WriterTue Aug 29, 5:12 PM ET

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, convinced he won't be awarded the presidency, has vowed to create a parallel leftist government and is urging Mexicans not to recognize the apparent victory of the ruling party's Felipe Calderon.

While his party lacks the seats in Congress to block legislation, Lopez Obrador can mobilize millions to pressure his conservative rival to adopt the left's agenda — or to clamp down and risk a backlash.

Both scenarios are possibilities as the former Mexico City mayor lays out plans to create his own government to rule from the streets, with the support of thousands who are already occupying protest camps throughout downtown Mexico City.

Some predict his parallel initiative — which Lopez Obrador's supporters call the "legitimate government" — could turn those protest camps into the core of a violent revolt, especially if the government tries to shut it down.

Such violence broke out in the southern city of Oaxaca after Gov. Ulises Ruiz sent police to evict striking teachers. Outraged citizens' groups joined the protests, setting fire to buildings and public buses, seizing radio and TV stations and forcing the closure of businesses in a city known throughout the world as a quaint tourist destination.

"Everything we do, from property taxes to permits to natural resources, will go through the 'legitimate government,'" said Severina Martinez, a school teacher from Oaxaca camped out in a tent in Mexico City's main Zocalo plaza. "We won't have anything to do with the official government."

Some supporters took out a newspaper ad Tuesday, calling on Lopez Obrador to set up his own treasury department and said all Mexicans "should channel federal revenues to the new treasury department."

Lopez Obrador is encouraging his followers to disobey Calderon, whose 240,000-vote advantage was confirmed Monday by the country's top electoral court. The seven magistrates stopped short of declaring Calderon president-elect, but they have only a week to declare a winner or annul the election.

"We do not recognize Felipe Calderon as president, nor any officials he appoints, nor any acts carried out by his de-facto government," Lopez Obrador said after the court ruling, which he claims overlooked evidence of fraud in the July 2 elections.

Lopez Obrador's Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, increased its number of congressional seats in those elections and became the second-largest bloc, behind Calderon's National Action Party, on Tuesday as new lawmakers were sworn in.

But it holds only a quarter of the seats — not enough to block legislation, especially if Calderon forges a likely alliance with the former ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party. That alliance would hold a majority in each house of Congress.

Lopez Obrador has ruled out negotiations with what he calls the "spurious" and "imposed" government. Because PRD legislators fear crossing him or his fervent followers, they can't cut deals to get their own legislation approved, making them even weaker.

"There is no possibility that we federal legislators in Congress will start any dialogue with the government," said PRD Senate leader Carlos Navarette, considered one of the party's moderates. "We will never forget that the leader and director of the Mexican people's action and the left is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador."

Lopez Obrador's plan is to have his government help the poor, oppose privatizations and make the news media — which he has accused of ignoring him — more "truthful and objective."

It's not clear how he plans to do that, but his supporters are already planning to hold an alternative swearing in ceremony to rival the official inauguration on Dec. 1.

People close to Lopez Obrador say he is assuming the role of his hero, 18th century President Benito Juarez, who led a roving, "unofficial" presidency from 1863 to 1867 during the French invasion, before driving out the invaders and executing the French-installed Emperor Maximilian.

"Juarez ran the government from a carriage and restored the republic," said Rosario Ibarra, a human rights activist who frequently shares the stage with Lopez Obrador at his rallies. "We just hope there won't be any need to shoot anyone."

So far, protesters have only scuffled with police. Some fear the movement could turn violent, although Lopez Obrador says it will remain peaceful.

The administration of President Vicente Fox hopes it will all just boil down to some fiery rhetoric and posturing.

"We think this is a symbolic, political act that has no validity in the affairs of state," Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Tuesday. Asked about Lopez Obrador's plan to declare himself head of state, Aguilar noted that "in this country, everyone is free to say whatever they want."

There is no question that Lopez Obrador is taking his "legitimate government" or "government in resistance" — the exact title has yet to be determined — very seriously.

Asked whether Lopez Obrador would wear some version of the presidential sash during his swearing-in ceremony, PRD spokesman Gerardo Fernandez accused reporters of poking fun at the candidate. He also upbraided those who spoke of plans for an "alternative government."

"What Andres Manuel has suggested is not an alternative president," Fernandez said. "It will be a legitimate government with a legitimate president."

[Global_Justice]

this is big. surely if they go ahead with this other government it is the beginings of a revolution?

[bolshevik butcher]

This is the beggining of a stage of duel power. So yes, the begignng of a revolution.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I wouldn't neccesarily say "revolution", though. If a domestic war breaks out, who knows wether class relations will change or not?


Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, convinced he won't be awarded the presidency, has vowed to create a parallel leftist government and is urging Mexicans not to recognize the apparent victory of the ruling party's Felipe Calderon.

I smell [the beginning of a] civil war. This must be a recipe for civil war no?

[rouchambeau]

*sigh* Yet another politician trying to capitalise on discontent.

This isn't the making of a revolution. It's the making of a civil war.

[Phugebrins]

The most this will amount to is a Ukrainian-style 'revolution' - where the political energies of the country are focused on one politician with no intention of doing anything good by the people of the country.

[JKP]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 30 2006, 12:01 PM
This is the beggining of a stage of duel power. So yes, the begignng of a revolution.
It might be a revolution - it might not.

There isn't enough evidence either way.

[namepending]

Mexico is exactly where the US wants it---- its as much a little brother to the World Godfather as canada is its big sister and Britain it's old mother. And no one messes with the family. There is the same amount of chance that Mexico becomes a socialist state- or even anything other than the current regime- as there is that pluto goes on a binge eating spree to get gain back its fallen reputation- (lets be honest with outselves, we all knew Pluto's was a loser. Come on, you know how Nepute's always trying to get on its axis away from it, and apparently the sun was never very commited on their respective gravitational well-being, leaving him freezing in there in the cold of space... looking for a moon like everyone else but with only a fool's hope of finding one... poor loser. Well, at least freaks like him and Karr can get their five minutes of fame before returning to the farthest outreaches of the abyss.)

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:18 PM
The most this will amount to is a Ukrainian-style 'revolution' - where the political energies of the country are focused on one politician with no intention of doing anything good by the people of the country.
I don't think so. Unlike in Ukraine Obrador is not standing on a bourgeoirse platofrm, but rather as the 'Mexican Chavez', he is riding on the back of a movment of increasingly conscious workers movment that is threatening to advance beyond him. Obrador is forced to go along with this or risks being abandoned by the workers.

[RevSouth]

If there is increasing conflict, or a civil war, do you all think the U.S. would step in?

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:20 PM
If there is increasing conflict, or a civil war, do you all think the U.S. would step in?
unfortunaly. yes or maybe not? only way i dont see them doing it is if the american people complain that troops are alreayd in Iraq and such.

[rouchambeau]

I don't think so. Unlike in Ukraine Obrador is not standing on a bourgeoirse platofrm, but rather as the 'Mexican Chavez'
A society where the working class relies on the good will of the ruling powers sounds pretty bourgeois to me.

[Morag]

It's an interesting step and one that has been the hallmark of a lot of revolutions, whether they were successful or socialist, or not. If the Mexican people, at least the ones who voted for and supported Obrador, decide that his parallel government is the legitimate government, it means that they refuse to accept the trappings of legitimacy that the capitalists are trying to enforce on them through the supreme courts and false elections. It'll be dirty and confusing, no doubt, but it doesn't necessarily have to end in civil war. It just means, if you will allow me to hope, such an extended "election" that the people will actually be able to judge the two as leaders of Mexico. Support will go between the two until a) Obrador is smashed by the military, or b) they have to hold new elections. Whether those elections are fair is another matter.

[which doctor]

In reality isn't this just a power struggle between two bourgeois politicians?

[Phugebrins]

Hm. The PRD 'programme of action' talks a lot about "economic democracy", which is encouraging, but doesn't really seem to reject capitalism outright anywhere, and "socialism" doesn't crop up once (though "solidarity" is quite common) - sounds very much like a social-democratic party on par with the Attlee government or Canada's NDP.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+Aug 30 2006, 04:42 PM--> (R_P_A_S @ Aug 30 2006, 04:42 PM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 09:20 PM
If there is increasing conflict, or a civil war, do you all think the U.S. would step in?
unfortunaly. yes or maybe not? only way i dont see them doing it is if the american people complain that troops are alreayd in Iraq and such. [/b]
Though the United States isn't exactly famous for giving a fuck what its citizens do or don't want it to do. It'll just feed the public a steady diet of lies, invade, and install "peace and democracy", in addition to a couple strategic military bases and economic investments.

[Iseult]

It's hard to imagine a worse "leader" than Vincente Fox. I hope his succesor will do a better job for the Mexican people. But, I`m not hopeful.

[Poum_1936]

Theres way to much pessimism in these posts. Very few revolutions start off with a clear socialist character, if any at all. Both the Russian and Spanish revolutions did not start with a clear socialist objective, it started when the people were fed up with the old society and moved for change. This is what is happening in Mexico right now. A victory against electoral fraud would be a huge victory for the Mexican people, but it will only be the START. This movement should not "poo-poo'd" on because the people at the beginning of the revolution supported a liberal bourgeois. Obrador could be pushed to the left of the masses, or dropped as time passes.

Heres a little more optomistic assesment of the situation in Mexico.

http://www.marxist.com/mexico-protest-elec...-revolution.htm (http://www.marxist.com/mexico-protest-electoral-fraud-revolution.htm)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Em, don't mean to rain on your parade here (and I certainly hope one of you can correct me) but I do believe the right-wing candidate in this election won? Yes, it may have been close but this article says the right-winger still won by nearly 240,000 votes, after a recount showed a decrease in that figure by only 4,000. The conservative is still in the majority, which in a democracy gives him ther right to assume power. Unfortunate that it is.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:09 PM
The conservative is still in the majority, which in a democracy gives him ther right to assume power. Unfortunate that it is.
That's not democracy. Democracy is not letting the oppressed choose their oppressors, with vote fraud!

And I guess there was a whole shit load of voter fraud, etc. in Mexico DF.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

And I guess there was a whole shit load of voter fraud, etc. in Mexico DF.
Yes, but we need proof.

[black magick hustla]

There is not really convincing proof about a fraud though.

You could always argue that there is the probability of fraud--but still today the PRD hasn't managed to prove it.

And frankly, I think the vision of socialism in Mexico is a tad bit optimistic. Mexico hasn't had a communist tradition for decades.

However, as CyM said once, this could prove as experience for class-struggle--in order to prepare the masses for a future possible revolution.

[which doctor]

I think what's happening in Oaxaca has far more potential for a revolution than some bourgeois power struggle.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I'm sure that any change in Mexican government in favor of the left would be a good thing, and there is a good chance this could in fact lead to socialism if done correctly.

My problem is, however, that unless it can be proven that this left-wing guy actually has the support of the majority, any act of radical dissent would be undemocratic and could therefore be ruthlessly slandered by the US media as terrorism.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:12 PM

And I guess there was a whole shit load of voter fraud, etc. in Mexico DF.
Yes, but we need proof.
http://narconews.com/Issue42/article2010.html

Mexico’s Partial Vote Recount Confirms Massive and Systematic Election Fraud
With Less than 9 Percent of Precincts Recounted, More than 126,000 Votes Are Found to Have Been Disappeared or Illegally Fabricated

By Al Giordano
Part V of a Special Series for The Narco News Bulletin

August 14, 2006

Finally, the hard numbers are starting to come in. In the “partial recount” of paper ballots from the July 2 presidential election in Mexico, ordered by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (known as the Trife), the recount has been completed in 10,679 precincts of the 11,839 ordered by the court (about 9 percent of Mexico’s 130,000 precincts). From these precincts, Narco News has obtained the following preliminary numbers that confirm the massive and systematic electoral fraud inflicted on the Mexican people:

* In 3,074 precincts (29 percent of those recounted), 45,890 illegal votes, above the number of voters who cast ballots in each polling place, were found stuffed inside the ballot boxes (an average of 15 for each of these precincts, primarily in strongholds of the National Action Party, known as the PAN, of President Vicente Fox and his candidate, Felipe Calderón).
* In 4,368 precincts (41 percent of those recounted), 80,392 ballots of citizens who did vote are missing (an average of 18 votes in each of these precincts).
* Together, these 7,442 precincts contain about 70 percent of the ballots recounted. The total amount of ballots either stolen or forged adds up to 126,282 votes altered.
* If the recount results of these 10,679 precincts (8.2 percent of the nation’s 130,000 polling places) are projected nationwide, it would mean that more than 1.5 million votes were either stolen or stuffed in an election that the first official count claimed was won by Calderon by only 243,000 votes.
* Among the findings of this very limited partial recount are that in 3,079 precincts where the PAN party is strong and where, in many cases, the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) of candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador did not count with election night poll watchers, one or more of three things occurred: Either the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE, in its Spanish initials) illegally provided more ballots than there are voters in those precincts, or the PAN party stole those extra ballots, or ballots were forged.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Thanks, that's all I was asking for.

In that case I fully support the establishment of any kind of alternative left-wing government in Mexico, and hope this sets the country on the road to revolution, and Socialism.

[MolotovLuv]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:22 AM
I'm sure that any change in Mexican government in favor of the left would be a good thing, and there is a good chance this could in fact lead to socialism if done correctly.

My problem is, however, that unless it can be proven that this left-wing guy actually has the support of the majority, any act of radical dissent would be undemocratic and could therefore be ruthlessly slandered by the US media as terrorism.
ha, don't worry they'll do that anyways. ANY sort of dissent to American interests will slandered by the media.

[Sadena Meti]

This reminds me of the early days after the Russian Revolution, when the new government came to power, but the forces-that-be(were) ignored them. A group saying "we are the new government!", and the established businesses saying "bugger off." It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[R_P_A_S]

have any of you heard Obrador make any socialist claims? I mean Im yet to hear the word--- revolution or socialism.

[R_P_A_S]

anyways obrador might not said anything pointing out a path into socialism. but the communist in mexico seem to support him. or maybe just any movement of the people against our goverment.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h240/theimg/PRDManifestation7-16-06075.jpg

[sp468732]

It would be interesting to hear what Marcos and the Zapatistas say on this matter.

[D_Bokk]

Hmm, as good as this sounds - I'm slightly skeptical. For one, Obrador isn't exactly the first person telling the Mexican people to not recognize the "official" government. I fear that Obrador may be "consuming" the support for the Zapatista movement, simular to the way the Progressive Party in the US was consumed. Before anyone jumps on my ass, I'm not comparing the US Progressive Party to the EZLN... just providing a historical reference for a ruling class strategy.

As much as I want to be optimistic about Obrador at this point, I'm still unclear about his true intentions. I'd much rather see the Zapatistas as the leaders, not Obrador.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:17 PM
have any of you heard Obrador make any socialist claims? I mean Im yet to hear the word--- revolution or socialism.
It doesn't matter, we are materialists, and as materialists it is the objective factor that decides this situation.

He may not be a revolutionary, but his basis of support in its entirety is in a radicalized working class. It is the strikes and general strikes of the past years and months that won him the elections. It is the revolt in Oaxaca that won him the first popular recognition of the parallel government (Oaxaca's movement has said it will be dealing only with the PRD government).

This is why the fraud happened to begin with. This is not Obrador taking power, this is striking workers beginning their road to power. If it was at all about what Obrador says, there would have been no fraud because his language was no threat to the bourgeoisie and there would be no parallel government because he intended only to use the courts.

The movement is decisively in charge here, and has decided it will not recognize any authority over it, it has declared itself in control. That is a revolution. I can't see any way it could be considered anything else except for middle and upper class "lefts" looking with snobbyness at the workingclass as not good enough for their tastes.

Looking forward to the massive people's assembly on the 16th. That will be a turning point.

As for the Zapatistas, fuck them. They have made it clear where they stand on this, they remain as snobby as the rest of you and have made themselves irrelevant in the face of the mass movement.

[JLA Warrior]

Yeah a new socialistic country on the borders of the USA. Thats a beutiful dream.
I hope the revolution to succed.

power to the people

[Marion]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Aug 31 2006, 12:16 PM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Aug 31 2006, 12:16 PM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 10:17 PM
have any of you heard Obrador make any socialist claims? I mean Im yet to hear the word--- revolution or socialism.
It doesn't matter, we are materialists, and as materialists it is the objective factor that decides this situation.[/b]

Yep, but surely if someone is elected due to "objective factors" the position that person took to get elected tells us something about or helps us interpret those "objective factors"? In this sense the claims that Obrador is making obviously matter - if he was making right-wing claims or making "revolutionary" positions you'd come to a different conclusion about the "objective factors" that are in play.


He may not be a revolutionary, but his basis of support in its entirety is in a radicalized working class.

I'm not sure how clear cut it is as that. Does it really make sense to say that despite not being a revolutionary he has somehow managed to gain the support of a "radicalized" working class? I get what you're saying and Obrador's support is definitely more left-wing than he is, but I don't think its as clear cut as you're suggesting.


It is the strikes and general strikes of the past years and months that won him the elections. It is the revolt in Oaxaca that won him the first popular recognition of the parallel government (Oaxaca's movement has said it will be dealing only with the PRD government).

I'm not sure the extent to which you can speak of the Oaxaca movement as a whole in this way. The APPO may very well be in favour of the PRD, but from what I've heard (which may be wrong), there's a good number of people who are not very happy at all with the general attitude, approach and reformism of APPO and the Oaxaca movement cannot be conflated into a simple position of support for the PRD.


This is why the fraud happened to begin with. This is not Obrador taking power, this is striking workers beginning their road to power. If it was at all about what Obrador says, there would have been no fraud because his language was no threat to the bourgeoisie and there would be no parallel government because he intended only to use the courts.

Debatable. Firstly, Obrador may not have been a threat to the bourgeoisie in a revolutionary sense, but some of his proposals would have had an effect on the business of some of them. It's similar to the fact that business in the UK in the 80's definintely preferred the Conservatives to Labour. I think it's pretty unrealistic to suggest that this didn't play any role in any alleged fraud. Secondly, if Obrador was no threat to the bourgeoisie and if the only threat came from stirring up the working class, then why not let Obrador win and avoid inflaming anyone?


The movement is decisively in charge here, and has decided it will not recognize any authority over it, it has declared itself in control. That is a revolution. I can't see any way it could be considered anything else except for middle and upper class "lefts" looking with snobbyness at the workingclass as not good enough for their tastes.

Well, for starters, the movement is most definitely not in charge. Obrador is (despite the fact he clearly is moving to the left to ensure he keeps their support). If the working class are not making decisions for themselves (the self-activity of the working class) and are instead looking for someone else to make decisions for them its a pretty good suggestion that it may be a very large mobilisation, which may have very large effects, but its not revolutionary.


As for the Zapatistas, fuck them. They have made it clear where they stand on this, they remain as snobby as the rest of you and have made themselves irrelevant in the face of the mass movement.

Its not as easy as just supporting something because it is a "mass movement". Besides, given the fact that substantial proportions of those in the PRD are ex-PRI (with all that entails), considering the PRD are taking nothing even remotely close to a revolutionary perspective and, perhaps most importantly, given the fact that PRD supporters have attacked Zapatistas on a number of occasions, its more a question of asking why the hell the Zapatistas would support the PRD? To be honest, I think going out of their way to support the claims of fraud at all was more than most people would have asked...

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Man, this is big... It's beautiful to see people becoming radicalised

I wonder how far it will go...

It's just a shame Obrador isn't that hot

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 08:55 AM
Yep, but surely if someone is elected due to "objective factors" the position that person took to get elected tells us something about or helps us interpret those "objective factors"? In this sense the claims that Obrador is making obviously matter - if he was making right-wing claims or making "revolutionary" positions you'd come to a different conclusion about the "objective factors" that are in play.
What I'm saying is that what someone professes means little if it is disconnected from actual forces on the ground.

Obrador is connected to the forces of the proletariat, and is reflecting the radicalization of that proletariat.

He may lag behind it, and he may be a reformist himself, but stop thinking of him and start thinking of the force itself. Bourgeois politics is about men and image and slogans. Proletarian politics is about the class forces behind those men, images and slogans. So stop debating the slogans and start debating the forces.


I'm not sure how clear cut it is as that. Does it really make sense to say that despite not being a revolutionary he has somehow managed to gain the support of a "radicalized" working class? I get what you're saying and Obrador's support is definitely more left-wing than he is, but I don't think its as clear cut as you're suggesting.
Yes, it does, people respond to the corruption they see in fox and the american agenda and are looking for a way out. Obrador, no matter how limited his vision, became that way out for millions, this is why the masses are behind him.

What is there not to be clear-cut about? He won in working class areas, particularly areas where there were recent strikes and struggles. His victories are not about him or the PRD, they are the culmination of all of those strikes.

It's not so complicated. The working class has been building an offensive in mexico for a while now, this is a part of that general trend. Showing it as an isolated situation and analysing it seperately is the bourgeois method. Ours is analysing the trends together with the momentous events.


I'm not sure the extent to which you can speak of the Oaxaca movement as a whole in this way. The APPO may very well be in favour of the PRD, but from what I've heard (which may be wrong), there's a good number of people who are not very happy at all with the general attitude, approach and reformism of APPO and the Oaxaca movement cannot be conflated into a simple position of support for the PRD.
And this matters because?

In every movement, you have jockeying, etc... I brough up Oaxaca because it shows that there is a big connection now between the insurrection there and the revolutionary situation in the rest of Mexico. It shows that the establishment of a parallel government is part of the revolutionary struggle in the rest of the country.

Whether it has not come completely to fruition yet because of divisions within Oaxaca doesn't matter to the context I was speaking in. It will affect the future of the situation, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that the masses are awakened and Obrador is only an imperfect face for their activity.


Debatable. Firstly, Obrador may not have been a threat to the bourgeoisie in a revolutionary sense, but some of his proposals would have had an effect on the business of some of them. It's similar to the fact that business in the UK in the 80's definintely preferred the Conservatives to Labour. I think it's pretty unrealistic to suggest that this didn't play any role in any alleged fraud. Secondly, if Obrador was no threat to the bourgeoisie and if the only threat came from stirring up the working class, then why not let Obrador win and avoid inflaming anyone?
Because they thought his proposals would inflame the masses more.

It is not worth having fraud over a few extra percentage points in taxes, but if those extra taxes bring about demands for more and more radical demands, then it is worth burning the country down over.

They thought they could pull off a fraud and prevent another Chavez, who started very modest and before long needed to be overthrown by a coup to prevent the snowballing power of the working class.

It backfired, but what choice did they have? They had to gamble.


Well, for starters, the movement is most definitely not in charge. Obrador is (despite the fact he clearly is moving to the left to ensure he keeps their support). If the working class are not making decisions for themselves (the self-activity of the working class) and are instead looking for someone else to make decisions for them its a pretty good suggestion that it may be a very large mobilisation, which may have very large effects, but its not revolutionary.
Obrador has called a popular assembly to establish the new government. Democracy will be enacted in the Zocalo, the massive central square in the streets of mexico city.

I think it's pretty clear that that is a revolution by definition, a government established in the streets.

You're still blinded by personality politics, disconnect for a second, step back and look behind Obrador. Stop thinking of him, think of him in context of a mexico that is on fire.


Its not as easy as just supporting something because it is a "mass movement".
A mass movement of the radicalized working class? Well yes actually, it is. You can point the way forward, but turning your back on the masses entirely makes you a reactionary. The Zapatistas refuse to reach out to the working class and remain in their enclave. When the workers decide to move anyways, the Zapatistas call them capitalists.

Fuck the Zapatistas and their snob attitude. By the time they open their eyes, the revolution will have come and gone and they will still be talking about how workers should go back home and stop participating in the movement against fraud.


Besides, given the fact that substantial proportions of those in the PRD are ex-PRI (with all that entails), considering the PRD are taking nothing even remotely close to a revolutionary perspective and, perhaps most importantly, given the fact that PRD supporters have attacked Zapatistas on a number of occasions, its more a question of asking why the hell the Zapatistas would support the PRD? To be honest, I think going out of their way to support the claims of fraud at all was more than most people would have asked...
Because they're supposed to be in this for the movement, not Citizen Zero's ego and his wanting to "one-up" other leftists.

There's such a thing as critical support, point out that the PRD and Obrador need to move left. But do it while being a part of the revolution that is happening around you. Don't just turn your back, because the masses aren't going to think of this as a snub to Obrador, they will think of it as a snub to themselves.

In fact, their support has already begun to falter because of this reactionary response to the mass movement. They have begun to make themselves irrelevant.

[Marion]

Thanks for the reply. Apologies for replying in such detail, but I feel its worth discussing in depth.

Obviously we disagree fairly fundamentally over the support for Obrador. Of course, you are completely correct to say that we need to understand what the working class is doing, their development, where they are moving etc and I wouldn't disagree with you. However, where we disagree is that you seem to think that the fact that the working-class is, to a certain extent, choosing to align itself behind Obrador is largely irrelevant. I'd disagree.

You say that "his victories are not about him or the PRD" - of course they are, because you have to look and see why the working class voted for him. For example, it tells us that they are wedded to electoral change. It tells us that they assume that if Obrador takes power he will be able to move to the left under their pressure. It tells us they believe in parliamentary politics as a potential route forward. It tells us they are putting their faith in someone else and someone else's institutions rather than their own strength. It tells us an awful lot about the content of their struggle. Don't get me wrong - I'm not blinded by Obrador and I do believe that there is some potential for revolution in Mexico at present its just I think that potential diminishes the more it becomes linked to a move to get Obrador into power.

More importantly, while analysing the movement of the working-class is vital, having a strong working class movement is a necessary, but by no means sufficient, element of revolutionary struggle. It is also necessary for the working-class movement to take charge of its own affairs (the struggle should be in their hands) and it must have the correct content as well. I'd agree that there is some potential for a revolutionary movement in Mexico at present - however, I think hitching this to Obrador is a wrong move.


The Zapatistas refuse to reach out to the working class and remain in their enclave. When the workers decide to move anyways, the Zapatistas call them capitalists.

Fuck the Zapatistas and their snob attitude. By the time they open their eyes, the revolution will have come and gone and they will still be talking about how workers should go back home and stop participating in the movement against fraud.

I'm more than happy for people to criticise the Zapatistas and have made some fundamental criticisms myself elsewhere. However, I'm really not sure that your criticisms are valid at all as they currently stand.

1) What evidence do you have that the Zapatistas refuse to reach out to the working class? I think it's pretty clear that they do - the Other Campaign is open to all from "below and to the left" provided they're not involved in registered political parties and has been trying to get involvement from all in and outside Mexico who agree with this. Workers are as open to La Otra as anyone else. Besides, let's not forget that the Other Campaign was halted over a pledge to show solidarity with the victims of Atenco - a struggle started over flower-sellers (maybe not the industrial proletariat, but working class none the less).

Where you are right is that the Other Campaign does not seek to get everyone to join the Zapatistas and become part of a large political party that seeks to include everyone's struggles within it. Instead, there's an acceptance that the working-class and those with other types of struggle can find their own ways of struggling (while accepting this within an anti-capitalist framework) and what is important is creating links between those struggles and the ones the Zapatistas are involved in within Chiapas. It's a different way of organising and it's certainly open to criticism, but it doesn't mean that they don't care about the working class.

2) When have the Zapatistas called the working class "capitalists"? If they have it's totally out of order and I'm not an expert on the Zapatistas so would very much like to see any quote that you can provide to back this up.

3) The Zapatistas do not have a "snob" attitude at all. Drawing a parallel, when people on this board have a different perspective on what makes a movement revolutionary (and some have a more left-wing view than me) I don't think its because they are "snobs" - it's just they've come to a different decision than me. Calling them "snobs" and saying "fuck the Zapatistas" doesn't make them right or wrong, it just says a lot about the way you frame your arguments.

4) You say "they will still be talking about how workers should go back home and stop participating in the movement against fraud". Again, if you could back this up it would be most helpful. Of course, the Zapatistas have actually defended the PRD over the fraud claims (http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1961.html) so would be interested in reading your quotes.

PS What makes you think that the bourgeoisie in Mexico felt that Obrador would, under pressure, move to the left and end up becoming another Chavez. What is it that you think would lead them to that conclusion rather than thinking he would end up like Lula or Kirchner or someone similar? Seems to me that given the programme Obrador stood on, the make-up of the PRD (wedged to corrupt unions and with a sizeable ex-PRI component), the fact they would only have control of the presidency, the fact that the increasing trends towards triangulation would make moving to the left a huge gamble I'm not convinced at all. All you'd have would be working-class pressure, and you'd have to remember that this probably wouldn't start for a year or so (they'd give Obrador time to bed in) and even if it built up would always have the advantageous potential for the PRI or PAN of tearing the PRD apart. Committing fraud was always going to lead to this type of situation (as was widely predicted). Ultimately, its far more likely that the fraud was committed because of small changes that Obrador would make and the desire of those in power to remain in positions of relative power than out of any sense that Obrador was actually going to be radical.

[Janus]

I found this quite interesting. The Mexican court is really going to be hardpressed to do something or else Obrador may deliver on his promises. I also find it interesting that Fox has declined to get involved in all this and is gonna go ahead with his state of the union address.

[Axel1917]

Things are definitely developing. I will try to keep an eye on this. I hope I can keep up well; I am still rather busy.

[Morag]

Ultimately, its far more likely that the fraud was committed because of small changes that Obrador would make and the desire of those in power to remain in positions of relative power than out of any sense that Obrador was actually going to be radical.

I disagree. Small changes, even a lot of small changes, are not worth the consequences of being caught fixing an election, especially not when the working class is up in arms over so many things, as the Mexican working class has been recently. If workers are striking and setting up parallel state governments, what would be the response? Fix an election to keep business taxes low? Or fix an election so these people cannot have their voices heard in the government and so they look like illigitimate? At this point, for the Mexican capitalists and their American friends, it likely seemed more important to stop the movement by fixing the election then it was to fix the election to privatise the state oil company. The oil would just be the icing. It's about priorities, and the cappies know that they have to have us in line before they can move ahead with their interests.

That's why supporting the workers who apparently support Obrador is so important.They aren't falling in line, and they don't want too fall in line any time soon.

[Marion]

I wasn't meaning small changes in terms of them not having any significant effects, merely small in comparison to the notion that Obrador was revolutionary. I think that the fraud was committed not out of any fear that Obrador was a revolutionary or that electing Obrador would lead to a revolutionary uprising from the people. Simply that Calderon and PAN would manage capitalism better and that it would enable them to be closer to power.

Why would people have stopped Obrador from getting into power out of fear of the working-class? You can make a considerably better argument (as some did prior to the election) that letting Obrador win would have ended up demoralising those interested in radical politics in the same way as happened in Brazil and Ecuador. Anyway, I'm kinda repeating my earlier posts so I'll leave it at that - an interesting debate though!

[Tekun]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:18 AM
I think what's happening in Oaxaca has far more potential for a revolution than some bourgeois power struggle.
I agree, the situation in Oaxaca has far more revolutionary potential than what is occurring in Mexico
The teachers on strike have taken over the city, and are directing things in and out of that region
I recently heard that city officials have officially lost control of the city to the teachers
I think that the teachers should stop the discussion and start gearing to defend themselves if Mexican soldiers try to take the city
I also heard that the Popular Revolutionary Army has taken up their cause, and has vowed to help in any way if the teachers accept it



However, what is happening in the capital is very different
First, Obrador is the leader of the PRD (a liberal bourgeois political party) and of the protestors
He has control of what is occurring, and as such, if he were to become president, the protests would stop-thus meaning no revolution
Awhile ago, his supporters were threatening to take over the airport in the city of Mexico
But true to his form, the reactionary Obrador rejected their plan and they acquiesced to his demands
Obrador has on many occassions proclaimed that his campaign is peaceful and civil
He has rejected protestors claims to take over governmental institutions by force, and he has told his supporters that the current protests are intended to clean out the bureaucracy and corruption in Mexico's political process
Therefore, it seems that he is primarily concerned with taking power through democratic means, than in relieving the exploitation and poverty that inundates Mexico

Both the Zapatistas and the Popular Revolutionary Army have dismissed Obrador as a bourgeois politician whose only intention is to take power
So although Obrador has the support of many working class Mexicans, they unfortunately hold the belief that he is going to improve their conditions by empowering them, when we all know that his only intention is to improve the conditions of his own class


I think that the only positive thing of all these events has been the rise in political consciousness of the working class
Which if communists or socialists take advantage of, has the potential to evolve into a revolutionary situation
But for that to happen, ppl have to forget about Obrador and his party, and they have to focus on themselves, their class, and the improvement of their lives if they were to overthrow boojee politicians and empower themselves

[Karl Marx's Camel]

have any of you heard Obrador make any socialist claims? I mean Im yet to hear the word--- revolution or socialism.

As I see it, a (genuine) revolution won't happen through the words of a leader.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:33 AM
I also heard that the Popular Revolutionary Army has taken up their cause, and has vowed to help in any way if the teachers accept it
I know they recently released a statement basically saying that if the government closes down peaceful avenues of protest then taking up arms is the only other option. They may have said something specifically about the Oaxaca teachers elsewhere though...

[rebelworker]

CyM,

Im assuming your rediculously anti Zapatista position is somehow coming from the line being taken by the Trots in Mexico you are alighned with.

The Zapatistas existed primarily to deal with the conditions of the isolated Indigenous communities in the far south, so logically they would be a little detached from The National poliitics hundreds of miles away.

Having said that, everything they have come out woth in the last several years has been an effort to unite with the various popular movementsa around the country and the world.

As I stated before in another thread (which I guess you ignored) there recent initiative "la autra campaignia," has done alot of outreach to the organised working class, with much success. The largest and most radical unions have all been involved to soame degree or another.

The Zapatistas are most certainly linking up with their indigenous allies in Oaxaca, where Mexico is the hottest right now. There have been links between the movements in these two states being built for years..

Now, Obrador, in a totally self serving move calls for a parallel govt in the streets (power in the streets he wouldnt care about if he won the election). This is what the Zapatistas and many others have been organising for as a matter of principal for over a year now Nationally, and much longer locally..

The huge difference between this situation and that of the Ukrain, id that this popular discontent is the culmination of long and massive grassroots campaigns by a radical and self organised Mexican population. Radical leftist sentiment is everywhere, and the most visible current in the streets, soemthing tat can not be said atall of the "orange revolution".

Mexico is headed towards revoltuion, it may be decades from now, but that is the current trajectory. Of course much could change, and usually dose, but Mexico is one of the most likely countries for a large upheaval in the world today.


PS Im currently organising a tour of Ontario and Quebec of militants from Oaxaca, that is set to start in mid October. Ill keep people posted.

[Leon Esperanza]

Humn, on my first thread I made an efort to make a context of the situation in Mexico.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55294

Actually the resistance movement that focuses on the fraud hasn't decided yet if it will form an "alternative government" or just a "resistance coordination", that'll be decided on September 16th.

The correct characterization of the movement is becoming that of a pacific disobedience, that makes it at most a rupturist movement in its goals (up till now ataining presidency for Obrador and reforming some of the institutions), still very far from rebellion and even farer from revolutionary.

Someone showed a photo, well the images of Marx, Lenin and folks where put there by an organization called Frente Popular Revolucionario, unfortunately they are stalinist, but heck we are on the first stages yet.

BTW Trotskyist are quite sympathetic or even suporters towards EZLN down here, maybe I didn't understand, but I suposed someone implied that they are antizapatistas.

And someone pointed out correctly that the most revolutionary process in Mexico right now is happening in Oaxaca.

You see there it is no longer only the teachers fighting, now almost all of the doctors, nurses, administratives are also fighting, more than 50 municipalities have adhered to the APPO (Asamblea Popular del Pueblo de Oaxaca - Popular Asembly of the people of Oaxaca), so it has surpased the barrier of a guild or sector movement and transformed into a class movement. They have taken control of radio stations, have formed their own security and defense force, they have put their own coin on circulation, have barricades on the capital, we are talking clearly of a rebellion, and of a generalized confrontation between the people and the government.
(Oh, and you don't hear much support to Obrador in Oaxaca because there's also no suport from Obrador or PRD to Oaxaca)

I'll keep informing on this subject.

I also do believe that a revolutionary uprising will happen soon, and if it just doesn't happen we, the zapatistas and La Otra, will make it happen in less than 6 years. And we are known for keeping our word...

Patria Libre o Morir
Patria o Muerte, venceremos

[Guerrilla22]

This parallel government idea is great, why not let the people decide who they give their allegiance to.

[red team]

This parallel government idea is great, why not let the people decide who they give their allegiance to.

Because the wealthy and powerful are hypocrites who only like "democracy" on their terms.

[Tekun]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:48 PM
This parallel government idea is great, why not let the people decide who they give their allegiance to.
As of right now the TRIFE just announced Calderon's victory
So....
Im curious to see how Obrador is gonna conduct his "parallel government"
And I wonder if the Mexican gov is gonna take steps to shut down Obrador and his supporters
The next few months are gonna be interesting

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Tekun+Sep 6 2006, 01:28 AM--> (Tekun @ Sep 6 2006, 01:28 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 08:48 PM
This parallel government idea is great, why not let the people decide who they give their allegiance to.
As of right now the TRIFE just announced Calderon's victory
So....
Im curious to see how Obrador is gonna conduct his "parallel government"
And I wonder if the Mexican gov is gonna take steps to shut down Obrador and his supporters
The next few months are gonna be interesting [/b]
I'm sure Calderon will come down hard on the parallel govt. I wouldn't be surprised if the military is called in to strong arm Obrador, the other members of the parallel govt. and their supporters. That's democracy for ya.

[R_P_A_S]

this is when the zapatistas or ANYONE OUT THERE with some pull in mexico should take action and stir things up. Obrador got the people out. now is time for the people to take lead and hold their ground. It be a good thing to see rebel armies and groups join the protestors and together. I'll be there in a week comrades!

[bolshevik butcher]

Sorry but I think it can now be accepted that the zapitistas are entirley unintereseted in the mass movment of the Mecian working class and far more intersted in staying in their irrelevant 'liberated territory'. It's down to the advanced sections of the working class themselves to lead the revolution, not some masked men in the jungle.
http://www.marxist.com/mexico-tribunal-cal...ident070906.htm (http://www.marxist.com/mexico-tribunal-calderon-president070906.htm)

[chaz171]

This isn't the making of a revolution. It's the making of a civil war.

I have to agree. one thing I want to say about this matter is that it is bound to get very messy down there. most of Obrador's support comes from Mexico City where he was mayor. this is a condensed metropolitan area. if any fighing breaks out, there will be a lot of bloodshed.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 7 2006, 06:58 PM
Sorry but I think it can now be accepted that the zapitistas are entirley unintereseted in the mass movment of the Mecian working class and far more intersted in staying in their irrelevant 'liberated territory'. It's down to the advanced sections of the working class themselves to lead the revolution, not some masked men in the jungle.
http://www.marxist.com/mexico-tribunal-cal...ident070906.htm (http://www.marxist.com/mexico-tribunal-calderon-president070906.htm)
What are you basing this statement on?

That total propaghanda peice?

I couldnt be botherd to read the whole ting because it was such a rhetoric filled rant, but I didnt even see a mention of the Zapatistas in there.

The Zapitistas dont whant to "lead" the national revolution. They want to be apart of it, and they have been encouraging and working with other groups who have been organizing themselves.

You ex militant folks are rediculous...

total vanguardist claptrap, worse then you get in the socialist worker...

For the reord Im not an uncritical supporter of the Zapatista model, but its much closer to what could lead to a successful revolution than the kind of dogma you are spewing.

[bolshevik butcher]

No that was an update on events just now....and the zapitistas are completley uninvolved so of course it didn't mention them. I can find an article that does mention the zapitistas if it so pleases you. As far as I can see the zapitistas are not remotley interestd in a mexican revolution.

[Marion]

No that was an update on events just now....and the zapitistas are completley uninvolved so of course it didn't mention them. I can find an article that does mention the zapitistas if it so pleases you. As far as I can see the zapitistas are not remotley interestd in a mexican revolution.

And your previous post read as follows:


Sorry but I think it can now be accepted that the zapitistas are entirley unintereseted in the mass movment of the Mecian working class and far more intersted in staying in their irrelevant 'liberated territory'. It's down to the advanced sections of the working class themselves to lead the revolution, not some masked men in the jungle.

Dealing with each of the issues in turn:

1) The Zapatistas are not "completely uninvolved in events now". If you're referring to the Obrador fraud (as I'm presuming you are - it's really not all that clear what you mean) then Marcos has repeatedly condemned that fraud. You're right that they are not making a huge issue out of it and right that they are not supporting Obrador in any way, but that is not the same as being "completely uninvolved".

2) The Zapatistas are not "entirely uninterested in the mass movement of the Mexican working class". If you're referring to the Obrador issue then note my comment above. If you're referring to Atenco then the main support for that came from the Zapatistas, with the likes of Obrador refusing to discuss the issue (perhaps you want to raise that issue in more depth?). If you mean Oaxaca, then the Zapatistas are involved in that struggle (but supporting the self-activity of those protesting rather than an uncritical and blanket support for APPO as the PRD are doing). I'm not really sure where you get your information from, but it seems totally wrong to me.

3) The Zapatistas are "more intersted in staying in their irrelevant 'liberated territory'". Can you explain your reading of the Other Campaign then? If a planned large-scale campaign around every area of Mexico is not an example of the exact contrary of what you're suggesting then I don't know what is.

4) "It's down to the advanced sections of the working class themselves to lead the revolution, not some masked men in the jungle". I think this has been dealt with elsewhere. The Zapatistas are not seeking to "lead" the revolution for the "working class". Presuming you've a fairly traditional Marxist idea of the working class as the industrial proletariat, why do you think the Zapatistas would have the nerve to try and "lead" this different sector of the proletariat to do anything?

To be honest, I think rebelworker has quite correctly called you out on your previous posts. It is quite noticeable that, while they show a basic knowledge of the facts with regards to Obrador's election, that none of your posts show any sort of more detailed analysis, particularly with regard to the Zapatistas. I'm more than happy to engage in critical discussion of the Zapatistas (and have mentioned some of my own elsewhere) but none of your comments really show any sort of understanding of the issues concerned.

[bolshevik butcher]

By completley uninvolved I mean they are having no impact, go to the average conscious working class person in Mexico just now and tell them about the zapitistas do you think that they will care? Where are the zapitistas when they are on the barricades? They are criticising them, calling them capitalists, or giving toaken condemnations of frauds.

By my liberated territory I was reffering to the zapitaistas main strategy which appears to be rather than trying to build a mass revolutionary organisation which can help lead the working class to a revolution in Mexico, to be taking over small areas of territory inside a larger cpaitalist state.

[Ligeia]

I really wonder what will happen but I've got people who will tell me at first hand.
But any way the situation is really confusing I couldn't imagine that it will go far and last that long.
When I was there I was really impressed how harmonizing all was and all that solidarity was atonishing, they got such a good sense for organisation.
Nevertheless,I wonder if the people there still are in the mood of pacifism.

[Marion]

By completley uninvolved I mean they are having no impact, go to the average conscious working class person in Mexico just now and tell them about the zapitistas do you think that they will care?

A poll at the start of the year suggested that about 40-odd percent of Mexicans supported the Zapatistas, with the same proportion against them (the rest don't knows). I'd guess support among the working-class would be higher. Of course, the situation has changed in Mexico dramatically since then and since the election I'd imagine the proportion supporting them or sympathising with them has gone down quite a bit, but is probably still relatively a substantial minority (particularly among the "conscious working class person in Mexico" however you define that). Yeah, obviously there is more support for Obrador - but the crucial thing is having the right approach, not saying what is going to pick you up the most support in the short-term.


Where are the zapitistas when they are on the barricades? They are criticising them, calling them capitalists, or giving toaken condemnations of frauds.

Yeah, you're right that they're not spending an awful lot of time condemning the fraud. However, I think its fair to say that they want to avoid doing anything that is seen as supporting Obrador himself rather than the fraud. Moreover, its probably fair to say that they're taking time to consider their next move at present (this was hinted at recently).

Once again though, can someone please provide me of evidence where the Zapatistas have called the working-class capitalists? I've asked before and there was no response but I'd be really interested in reading it.


By my liberated territory I was reffering to the zapitaistas main strategy which appears to be rather than trying to build a mass revolutionary organisation which can help lead the working class to a revolution in Mexico, to be taking over small areas of territory inside a larger cpaitalist state.

Well, firstly, I'd refer to you my original point about the Zapatistas trying to "lead" anyone to do anything. Secondly, where on earth do you get the idea that the Zapatista's "strategy" is only to want there to be "small areas of territory inside a larger capitalist state"? They are wholesale against capitalism, its just that they do not see it as their place to lead different groups of people who have different struggles. They will offer them support and try to link the struggles to ensure the widespread defeat of capitalism (this is what the Other Campaign is about), but they are not trying to form any sort of Mexican mass revolutionary organisation. Of course, this approach is open to debate, but I'm not sure you've actually offered any meaningful criticism of it yet, but rather wrongly implied they only care about their "liberated areas". Again, if that was true, then what was/is the point of the Other Campaign??

[rebelworker]

Its clear that this guy has no idea what he;s talkking about.

Yoiu ust started following politics in mexico a few weeks ago cause whatever trotskyist sect you belong to has decided this is the flavor of the month.

Ive been following politics in mexico for a almost a decade and have working relationships with revolutionaries all over the country. I have friends here who a refugees from strikes in DF, I am binging organizers from Oaxaxa up to do a speaking tour next month Im connected to indigenous revolutionaries with similar politics to the Zapatistas in the South and hard core commies in the north.

The Zapatistas draw crouds of hundreds of thousands whenever they visit DF. they also have been helping to organise mass assemblies all over the counrty. They have supoort and work with many of the major labour unions.

Get your head out of your parties ass and start to find out whats really happening there, your just embarasing yourself and misinforming others.