Zapatistas under attack

[Forward Union]

Following increased tensions in Chiapas, including the deployment of new Speical forces, an increase in paramilitary activity, including several shootings and attacks on the Zapatista comunity Bolon Ajaw III . Marcos has explicitly stated that he is not doing any more public appearances and is concentrating on strengthing and commanding the zapatista army of national liberation.

There is no date for the next encuentro.

¨Those of us who have made war know what the preparations for war look like¨

From people I know who are currently there, they say shit is going to kick off bigtime. I have managed to find a, translated, full reposrt by a Chiapas based solidarity group;

http://209.85.135.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://chiapas.indymedia.org/display.php3%3Farticle_id%3D152776&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dzapatistas%2Bindymedia%26hl%3Den%26ie %3DUTF-8 (http://209.85.135.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://chiapas.indymedia.org/display.php3%3Farticle_id%3D152776&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dzapatistas%2Bindymedia%26hl%3Den%26ie %3DUTF-8)

[Red October]

Does the EZLN have the military strength to resist a new offensive?

[BIG BROTHER]

Does the EZLN have the military strength to resist a new offensive?

As far as I know the EZLN could have been wiped-out the first day the movement started.

The only reason why our dear and corrupt mexican goverment hasn't exterminated them, is because they don't really pose much treat.

[Forward Union]

Does the EZLN have the military strength to resist a new offensive?

Who can say? The EZLN don't publically anounce their millitary strenght.

The EPR (popular revolutionary army) are a Chiapas based communist group who have anounced their support for the EZLN (though the EZLN refuse to associate with them because they advocate a workers state) but the EPR are better equiped and trained, they're a much stronger millitary. Though they have no mass support.

[Organic Revolution]

They should have enough military support to repel attacks but not enough to go on the offensive.

[BIG BROTHER]

I highly doubt that they have any military support to repel goverment attacks. The communist league "23 de septiembre" during 1973 was the most supported and numerous guerrilla group, but when the goverment actually decided to stop ignoring them and exterminate them, they did it without much effort.

The EZLN has less support so if the goverment wanted to attack them, they would perish, they don't even have all the support of all indians in Mexico.

But since they haven't really much, I also doubt that the goverment would want to attack them.

[Forward Union]

Everyone sign this petition.

http://www.petitiononline.com/HELPEZLN/petition.html

[Devrim]

Everyone sign this petition.

http://www.petitiononline.com/HELPEZLN/petition.html

Ha, anarchists distributing petitions to send to the US congress, senate and president, pathetic.

Devrim

[wethepeople]

Ha, anarchists distributing petitions to send to the US congress, senate and president, pathetic.

Devrim
As anarchy is for the most part unachievable at the moment, we anarchists have to settle for working and outwitting the system.

[wethepeople]

I highly doubt that they have any military support to repel goverment attacks. The communist league "23 de septiembre" during 1973 was the most supported and numerous guerrilla group, but when the goverment actually decided to stop ignoring them and exterminate them, they did it without much effort.

The EZLN has less support so if the goverment wanted to attack them, they would perish, they don't even have all the support of all indians in Mexico.

But since they haven't really much, I also doubt that the goverment would want to attack them.
When I was in Chiapas, I did not see much of the Zapatista military force. They keep to themselves and do not publicize who they are. I could have met Subcomandante Marcos on the street, who knows.

The Mexican police, however, are well equipped, numerous, very serious and dangerous.

[Devrim]

As anarchy is for the most part unachievable at the moment, we anarchists have to settle for working and outwitting the system.
Superb, you will be voting next.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

but the EPR are better equiped and trained, they're a much stronger millitary. Though they have no mass support.

What are you basing these assertions on?

Here's a thread on the EPR for anyone interested: http://www.revleft.com/vb/ongoing-social-unrest-t63076/index.html?t=63076

[wethepeople]

Superb, you will be voting next.

Devrim
Maybe. Or, maybe we will just wait until after the election, and if we don't like the winner, we will assassinate him/her/hillary.

[Devrim]

Maybe. Or, maybe we will just wait until after the election, and if we don't like the winner, we will assassinate him/her/hillary.

I will presume from your post that you are an idiot. However, Wat Tyler is a member of an anarchist organisation, and as such deserves to be treated seriously.

What on Earth are you doing distributing petitions, Wat Tyler?

Devrim

[Red October]

Maybe. Or, maybe we will just wait until after the election, and if we don't like the winner, we will assassinate him/her/hillary.

You're an idiot. I'd like to see an armchair revolutionary like you assassinate a president. If you could actually do that you wouldn't be stupid enough to post about it on a public message board. It's fucking sad that this kind of shit passes for anarchism these days.

[Forward Union]

What are you basing these assertions on?

Well I read it in La Journada in Mexico City this July, So I can't source it online, but you could email the editors.

Here's a thread on the EPR for anyone interested: http://www.revleft.com/vb/ongoing-social-unrest-t63076/index.html?t=63076[/quote]

[Forward Union]

Ha, anarchists distributing petitions to send to the US congress, senate and president, pathetic.


You do my fucking head in sometimes. It's going to Marcos and the people of chiapas aswell, which to me is a pretty positive message of solidarity.


When I was in Chiapas, I did not see much of the Zapatista military force. They keep to themselves and do not publicize who they are. I could have met Subcomandante Marcos on the street, who knows.

Well you probably would have noticed him because he'd be surrounded by press. So I am willing to bet a lot of money that you didn't.


I will presume from your post that you are an idiot. However, Wat Tyler is a member of an anarchist organisation, and as such deserves to be treated seriously.

What on Earth are you doing distributing petitions, Wat Tyler?

I am under no illusions. Petitions don't make change, you must know me well enough. I don't honestly believe the US congress will suddenly bow to the demands of it, even if 6 billion people signed it. The point however is that it shows where public oppinion stands, and delivers a message of support to the people of Chiapas. That's all. I still propose social and economic revolution, and am active in trying to creating it.

Having been to both Oaxaca and Chiapas on political terms, you know that I am hardly one who has hope in petitions. But I would ask you to sign it for the merits I listed.

[Devrim]

You do my fucking head in sometimes. It's going to Marcos and the people of chiapas aswell, which to me is a pretty positive message of solidarity.

What, it does your head in when somebody happens to mention that you are pushing liberal nonsense.

Actually, in my opinion anarchism wouldn't be that bad if it stuck to its principles. The problem with it is it always ends up falling into leftism or, equally bad in this case, just abject liberalism.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

What, it does your head in when somebody happens to mention that you are pushing liberal nonsense.

That's a rediculous strawman given the context.

[RedAnarchist]

Everyone sign this petition.

http://www.petitiononline.com/HELPEZLN/petition.html

I signed it and anyone who has a problem with me doing so can go pray to St Marx and St Bakunin.

(edit - I put a fake zipcode in, didn't know I could put in a postcode).:rolleyes:

[Colonello Buendia]

As W.T. said, this is mostly a message of solidarity to Subcomandante Marcos and the EZLN. I signed and anyone who supported the EZLN should, not because it's going to the US government but because it's showing the Zapatistas that we're with them.

[abbielives!]

Does the EZLN have the military strength to resist a new offensive?


they have the popular support, but nothing is written in stone. a good deal of international solidarity will be nessisary i imagine

[Leo]

I am under no illusions.No, but lots of other people are and you are inciting the illusions of others even if you are not under any illusions.


The point however is that it shows where public oppinion stands,I don't think anyone non-political would sign this, so it won't have anything to do with the public opinion. The majority of the people who would sign this petition are those who sign petitions regularly: left-liberals.


and delivers a message of support to the people of Chiapas. That's all. I wouldn't be excited to see a petition if I were in the shoes of an ordinary man from Chiapas. A petition is impersonal, it doesn't take anything, it doesn't mean anything - it is for satisfying liberal hearts only.

We consider the Zapatistas nationalists. I would suggest people who actually think they are revolutionaries to write letters to them instead of signing meaningless petitions addressed to George Bush. (And I would also suggest them to read this article written by communists from Mexico: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2005_ezln.html ;))

[Forward Union]

No, but lots of other people are and you are inciting the illusions of others even if you are not under any illusions.

On revleft?


We consider the Zapatistas nationalists

Let's discect the definition;

1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.

Nope, not specifically, I mean, they oppose scores of Mexicos culture. And even their own indigeanous culture has been attacked by the revolution. It used to be that homosexuals were 2nd class citizens, predominantly in Chiapas and the pre-zapatista communities, that generally isn't the case now. It used to be unnaceptable to be atheist, now it's acceptable. People are still pushed into forces marriages, and women are generally still housewives in Zapatista communities, but this is becoming socially unnaceptable, and steps are beign taken to combat this. etc etc

Furthermore, if you ever went to, or looked up the contents of their encuentros, you'd see that they have a devotion to the interests and cultures of all opressed peoples. When I was there they had Unionised Indian farmers, Thai Communists and South Korean Peasants all participating.

2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.

Absolutely not, they are trying to build an international network of revolutionary lefties to destroy neo-liberalism.

So on what grounds are they nationalists?


I would suggest people who actually think they are revolutionaries to write letters to them

I'd suggest they go there and help in person, or post them medecine

[Leo]

On revleft?

Yeah on RevLeft.


So on what grounds are they nationalists?On the two grounds you listed, I'd say:


1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.Yep. They carry the national flag and sing the national anthem regularly.


2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
Yep, they are for "a full and coordinated defence of national sovereignty".

[Forward Union]

Yep. They carry the national flag and sing the national anthem regularly.

You understand the political context behind this right? Day one of the revolution the Capitalist Media said they were foreign agitators from Guetemala trying to start a sepratist movement amongst the peasants in Chiapas. So in retaliation they adopted the Mexican flag.

Which is actually a flag born out of a revolutionary tradition in it's own right.

The Zaps also have a red and black flag, and the coulour scheme isn't an accident.

As for the anthem, you mean the one that starts

"Mexicans, at the cry of war,
prepare the steel and the steed,
and may the earth shake at its core
to the resounding roar of the cannon. "

and

"and the resonant echoes
cry out Union,
Liberty!"


not too shabby!


Yep, they are for "a full and coordinated defence of national sovereignty".

Well if that were to be taken at face value, they'd be supporting the soverign government right? So somethings obviously not right in their definition of "soverignty" (Even Durruti talked about creating a "new spain")

Particularly when we look at their other statements arguing for workers control of the means of production (no mention of state and rejection of groups that want state power) and the need for this to happen internationally.

Also, their opposition to all border controls...

Theres certainly nationalism in their rethoric, but Mexico is a strange nation, hard to define, in many ways it's defined by revolution. I think calling them nationalists is increadibly loaded.

[Leo]

You understand the political context behind this right? Day one of the revolution the Capitalist Media said they were foreign agitators from Guetemala trying to start a sepratist movement amongst the peasants in Chiapas. So in retaliation they adopted the Mexican flag.

Which is actually a flag born out of a revolutionary tradition in it's own right.

Yeah, so because the American flag was born out of a revolutionary tradition, waving it is completely acceptable :rolleyes:

And 'revolutionaries' waving national flags to prove that they are true Mexicans has also got nothing to do with nationality!

The Mexican flag is a nationalist flag, it is the flag of a nation state and has always been a nationalist symbol - just like all the other national flags.


As for the anthem, you mean the one that starts

"Mexicans, at the cry of war,
prepare the steel and the steed,
and may the earth shake at its core
to the resounding roar of the cannon. "

and

"and the resonant echoes
cry out Union,
Liberty!"

not too shabby!

It sounds nationalist and militarist.


Well if that were to be taken at face value, they'd be supporting the soverign government right?

It means, quite simply that they support the sovereignty, independence, freedom of the nation-state. The sentence that follows is a complete defense of national state capital against private capital. I know exactly what this means - it is what every nationalist defends in anywhere that is not the West and regardless of how 'romantic' the Zapatistas are represented in the West, this is what they depend as well. I know it too well, I've grown up hearing things like this every day.


Particularly when we look at their other statements arguing for workers control of the means of production

Which is rather non-existant. They defend the interests of small businessmen, for example along with peasants and workers. I have never even read the Zapatistas talking about the working class or anything like that. They rather talk about the people and so forth.


no mention of state and rejection of groups that want state power

Well yes, as a group who wants "peaceful transition to democracy and freedom" and who are for "free and democratic elections" , they obviously reject groups that want state power. It would be undemocratic, after all! As for the state, I don't think they are against the state in practice because they want to defend the nationalized state industries.


Theres certainly nationalism in their rethoric, but Mexico is a strange nation, hard to define, in many ways it's defined by revolution

You have really bought this romantic-patriotic "anti-authoritarian" zapatista thing, haven't you? ... "Yes there's nationalism in their rhetoric but Mexico is a strange nation"... what an absolutely ridiculous thing to say...

In all countries, dominant nationalism has particular shapes and looking at it from another country makes them look 'strange' and makes one think that because it's different from the nationalism at home, it must be something different, it must be a specific character of that particular country etc. This neither negates the anti-working class role of nationalism in that country, nor that it is ultimately a bourgeois ideology. Falling in love with a brand and the meaning of nationalism in a certain country is always an act that betrays the working class and the communists in that country.

[Forward Union]

Yeah, so because the American flag was born out of a revolutionary tradition, waving it is completely acceptable

No because culturally that has a completely different meaning.


It means, quite simply that they support the sovereignty, independence, freedom of the nation-state.

No! "The nation" and the "nation state" are two different things. It's possible to support a nation and oppose the state. The Zapatista system of direct democracy, and preference toward international forms of federalism clearly render their nationalist rethoric meaningless.


The sentence that follows is a complete defense of national state capital against private capital.

“The aim is to listen and learn about the struggles, the resistance and rebel movements all over the world, to support them and bind them together to build a national anti-capitalist, leftist program.”-Subcomandate Marcos


“We are going to rise up to overthrow the supreme governments, to overthrow corrupt officials, to throw all the rich and powerful out of this country forever and begin building a new Mexico with humble, working people.”-Subcomandate Marcos

"Anarchists accuse us of being socialists, Guilty, socialists accuse us of being Anarchists, guilty! We want a world in which many worlds are possible"



Which is rather non-existant. They defend the interests of small businessmen,

I've met these small bussinessmen. Mostly homeless who buy or steal cheap wool, make things on road sides and get their kids to sell it. Or people who rent houses, and in the back sell bottles of coke and packets of biscuits at half price to suppliment their wages. They're fucking poor.



As for the state, I don't think they are against the state in practice because they want to defend the nationalized state industries.


Such as? When I was listening to Marcos he was talking about the workers taking over the Coca Cola factory just down the road (after a liberal told him the Zapatistas should boycott coke)


because it's different from the nationalism at home, it must be something different,

A = A


This neither negates the anti-working class role of nationalism in that country, nor that it is ultimately a bourgeois ideology

Preaching to the Choir. What I mean is that the Mexican flag was a flag of resistance used by many groups including the Original Zapatistas against all kinds of domination. It was eventually hijacked and used as the nation states flag, but people still use it as a sort of, flag of resistance. Including the APPO, EZLN ,and the people of Atenco.

Of course, It's still a specific flag, it has nothing to do with the workers causes of anywhere else...

Thankfully the red and black is more common among workers struggles in Mexico :)

[Forward Union]

Marcos: When we speak of the nation we are necessarily speaking of history, of a history of common struggle with historical references that make us brothers to one group of people without distancing us from other groups. But what more do we have in common with the history of what is today called Mexico? I say this because the first accusation against Zapatismo is that it is aligned with Central America. Therefore it has to delineate itself and explain that its vision is not directed towards the south, but rather towards the north. That is to say, to that historical tradition which has brought it together with a group of people - in this case with the Mexican people, not with the Central American peoples. Because. . . remember that the other thing being said is that this revolution is the last Central America revolution. Some say it is the first postmodern revolution, others say that it is the last Central America revolution, even geographically speaking.

What occurs as a result of this insistence. . . when the concept of autonomy is brought up, the State understands it in this way: "Well, what the indigenous peoples want are reservations, like the ones North American indians have. This is where the companneros say, No, if we are going to end up like the North American indians on reservations, no?". This is not the concept of autonomy that we want, rather that they recognize, for example, this structure of government that I have explained, a structure that gives us validity. We don't want them to operate as if they were conquering territory. When the Federal army entered the communities before the war, or the judicial police or the public security police, or the municipal police, they entered as an invading army in enemy territory, even physically. When an army invades a country, everyone from that country is an enemy. When they entered the communities, they entered acting as if everyone were an enemy. At that point, the companneros said, We have our own forms of government, we have traditions of community decision-making that must be respected by the government. And not only that - these traditions are a good example for the national government, for the government of this country, for any government that pretends to be a democracy.

For this reason we speak of Mexico, of the Mexican nation, because we must mark our boundaries, we must say, It is not nostalgia for Central America, it is not nostalgia for Nicaragua, nostalgia for El Salvador. On the other hand, when they speak of autonomy they are speaking as sectarians. They don't look to the future but to the past, the nostalgia. . . They look to ethnicity in a pejorative sense, as if we wanted to create a bubble, a bubble like the one in the movie, a bubble that isolates you from contamination or from what happens outside it. Therefore, any concept that you put out there. . . We must make clear what we are speaking of in all senses.



http://struggle.ws/mexico/ezln/anmarin.html

[Forward Union]

We don't believe that the result of this revolution that we are proposing will be a new world, a new country; it will only be a first step, an antechamber that you enter before you enter this new country...


... If there is a Trotskyite proposal, a Maoist proposal, an Anarchist proposal, or proposals from the Guevaristas, the Castristas, the Existentialists or whatever ists that you may think of, they shouldn't be eliminated. They shouldn't be discussed in the way we are discussing them now, in small groups. In this discussion, we are demonstrating that we know a lot, that we speak very prettily, but in the discussions that we are proposing"

[BIG BROTHER]

My respects for both Leo and Wat...

[Devrim]

I find Wat Tyler's defence of nationalism disturbing. It seems strange that he can't recognise what a nationalist is even when one is waving the flag, and singing the national anthem. It is a similar line to the one he argued on the Korean thread, namely that anarchists should support some nationalists, and defend the state when necessary.



Yeah, so because the American flag was born out of a revolutionary tradition, waving it is completely acceptableNo because culturally that has a completely different meaning.

This is the first step towards open support for nationalism. Next you will be talking about the difference between 'oppressive', and 'oppressed' nations.


It means, quite simply that they support the sovereignty, independence, freedom of the nation-state.
No! "The nation" and the "nation state" are two different things. It's possible to support a nation and oppose the state. The Zapatista system of direct democracy, and preference toward international forms of federalism clearly render their nationalist rethoric meaningless.

And here comes another step. Now it is 'possible to support a nation' while still opposing the state of course. It is always good to dress up nationalism in leftist rhetoric. I would say that their nationalism makes their 'internationalist' rhetoric meaningless.

It is always the same. It is amazing how many leftists fall head over heals for nationalism when she dresses herself up in red.


I've met these small bussinessmen. Mostly homeless who buy or steal cheap wool, make things on road sides and get their kids to sell it. Or people who rent houses, and in the back sell bottles of coke and packets of biscuits at half price to suppliment their wages. They're fucking poor.

For communists it is not about being 'fucking poor'. Yes, personal I feel sympathy for the poor, but it is not a political point. We believe that the working class is a revolutionary class, and has the potential to change society. We don't believe that the peasantry, or the 'lumpen petite bourgeoisie' are. From that it is logical that communists support the working class, in its own struggles, and in its struggle to become a class for itself. This is not a working class movement, but a cross class movement. That is why it is nationalistic.


I am under no illusions [about petitions].
No, but lots of other people are and you are inciting the illusions of others even if you are not under any illusions.On revleft?

If you haven't noticed that Revleft is full of liberals, you must be drowning in a sea of illusions. Communists argue against petitions. I had assumed that anarchists would too. Obviously I was mistaken in your case.

Devrim

[wethepeople]

Well you probably would have noticed him because he'd be surrounded by press. So I am willing to bet a lot of money that you didn't.
You seem to forget the fact that Zapatistas don't walk around in ski masks all the time. The press does not know them individually when they are not in Zapatista garb.

What parts on Chiapas have you visited?

[Herman]

I find Wat Tyler's defence of nationalism disturbing. It seems strange that he can't recognise what a nationalist is even when one is waving the flag, and singing the national anthem. It is a similar line to the one he argued on the Korean thread, namely that anarchists should support some nationalists, and defend the state when necessary.

Ah yes, because Marcos shouldn't liberate Mexico. Forget it, that makes him a nationalist. He should liberate the working class of the entire world! He's got the numbers right? No wait... no, he doesn't. But he's got weapons, no? Umm... no, he doesn't.

So... what do you propose? That the Zapatistas just halt their struggle, forget the whole thing ever happened and go home?

If there is any nationalist rethoric, it's because it is needed. The people of mexico aren't supreme internationalists, like you or me. Most of the poor in Mexico have never been outside their country. So how do expect them to understand a concept such as internationalism?

I'm really tired of ultra-leftist "national-liberation" non-sense. You can keep your dogma and orthodoxy, but the Zapatistas will continue to fight.

[Leo]

Ah yes, because Marcos shouldn't liberate Mexico. Forget it, that makes him a nationalist. He should liberate the working class of the entire world! He's got the numbers right? No wait... no, he doesn't. But he's got weapons, no? Umm... no, he doesn't.

So... what do you propose? That the Zapatistas just halt their struggle, forget the whole thing ever happened and go home?We don't propose that they should do this or that. Also you talking about 'Marcos liberating Mexico' is also quite ridiculous.

To us they are nationalists, defenders of the national and state capital. We don't see them as revolutionaries, so we have no friendly advice to their leaders. We would say however that the workers who have been drawn to this movement should look after their interests as workers, not as Mexicans, Chiapanecos or Zapatistas but as workers.


If there is any nationalist rethoric, it's because it is needed. The people of mexico aren't supreme internationalists, like you or me. Most of the poor in Mexico have never been outside their country. So how do expect them to understand a concept such as internationalism?Most workers in many counties have never left those countries. Had this been something that would prevent workers from becoming internationalists, the workers and Bolsheviks in Russia would have been waving the Tsarist Russian flag instead of the red flag.

Workers don't become internationalists because they travel; they become internationalists because it's in their interests as workers. Similarly, nationalism doesn't exist because workers can't leave the places of their birth; it exists because it is in most cases the basis of bourgeois ideologies.


I'm really tired of ultra-leftist "national-liberation" non-sense.:rolleyes: Good to hear that we are doing our job here properly.


No! "The nation" and the "nation state" are two different things. It's possible to support a nation and oppose the state.

We already had enough who were painting nationalism red, and now we have people who are trying to paint it red and black.

[Forward Union]

and defend the state when necessary.

I will debate the nationalist accusation but I've never said Anarchists should defend a state!


I would say that their nationalism makes their 'internationalist' rhetoric meaningless.

I'd say the opposite. Thier internationalist Rethoric makes the nationalist rethoric meaningless. Why? Because ones no more potant or meaningful than the other.

But in reality they are internationalists, if we were to anylise the actions of their movement and not the words.


We don't believe that the peasantry, or the 'lumpen petite bourgeoisie' are.

That's not the universal communist oppinion though is it? I personally believe the material interests of the Peasantry and the proles are both opposed to capitalism and favour communist organisation.

I also don't think a factory workers wife who knits Zapatista dolls on the streets to sell to tourists is "petit bourgeoise" or a bussiness owner or anything other than a member of the labouring masses.

[Forward Union]

You seem to forget the fact that Zapatistas don't walk around in ski masks all the time. The press does not know them individually when they are not in Zapatista garb.

Well, maybe not all of them but they do know what Marcos, or should I say, Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente looks like, because we was a prominant maoist activist before organising the EZLN.

http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/Marcos-Rafael-Sebastian-Guillen-1.jpg


What parts on Chiapas have you visited?

San Cristobal, Tuxla, San Adreas, Huitepec, Oventic, La Morelia, Las Margaritas and La Realidad.

[black magick hustla]

The mexican national anthem is horrible and I got into so many problems with the school's adminstration for refusing to sing it.

A few friends and me were planning to change the disc of the national anthem to a death metal song. It would have been awesome, shame the plan never materialized. It wasnt that difficult, because the stereo where they put the shit was inside a room in the library that is always open.

[Forward Union]

The mexican national anthem is horrible

What do you think of El Himno Zapatista?

Now we can see the horizon
Zapatista combatant
The change will mark
Those that come after us

Let's go, let's go, let's go, let's go forward!
To take part in the struggle ahead
Because our Fatherland cries out for and needs
All of the effort of the Zapatistas

Men, children and women
We will always make the effort
Peasants and workers
All together with all the people

Our people demand now
For exploitation to end
Our history says now
struggle for liberation

A model we must be
And keep our slogan
That we shall live for the land
Or die for freedom

:crying:

[Leo]

I will debate the nationalist accusation but I've never said Anarchists should defend a state!If I recall correctly, you posted something about Korean anarchists, and above a painting of men who were carrying the national flag was written something like "Anarchists and anti-imperialists defending the state of Shinmin".


I'd say the opposite. Thier internationalist Rethoric makes the nationalist rethoric meaningless. Why? Because ones no more potant or meaningful than the other.So Mr. Mustache was actually internationalist when he was declaring "socialism in one country", when he said that world revolution was never their intention, when he made deals with the Nazis, when he began the "great patriotic war" and when he praised Peter the Great in his speeches because... he still said so.

And Mao must have been an internationalist when he said they must ally with the national bourgeoisie, when he joined forces with the Kuomintang and when he participated in the great war on behalf of the Chinese nationalist because... he said so.

The Turkish "Communist" Party must also be internationalist when they set up a front organization called the "Patriotic Front" and when they said "we won't let America split our country" because... they claimed to be so.

By your logic, every Stalinst is an internationalist. Hell, everyone who claims that they are internationalists, regardless of how nationalist they are, are internationalists because "thier internationalist Rethoric makes the nationalist rethoric meaningless"!

Ridiculous!!!


Because our Fatherland cries out for and needs
All of the effort of the Zapatistas
That we shall live for the landSounds pretty nationalist.

Since you are into this sort of stuff, please tell me what you think of these lines:


I have been free since the beginning and forever will be so.
What madman shall put me in chains! I defy the very idea!
I'm like the roaring flood; powerful and independent,
I'll tear apart mountains, exceed the widenesses and still gush out!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:And the star-spangled banner, in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Home of the brave and free,
Thou land of liberty,
We pray that still on thee
Kind heaven may smile.
Sing to the Motherland,
home of the free,
Bulwark of peoples in brotherhood strong.
Comfort and refuge of those who believe and fight.
Force and terror will not prevail,
But Truth and Love will reign.Do you see a pattern?:rolleyes:

[Forward Union]

If I recall correctly, you posted something about Korean anarchists, and above a painting of men who were carrying the national flag was written something like "Anarchists and anti-imperialists defending the state of Shinmin".


State as in a geographic region.


By your logic, every Stalinst is an internationalist.

Urm, no that's absolutely rediculous, and the reason you've made this parrellell is because you didn't read my entire paragraph. Allow me to reiterate. Stalin, Mao etc were not internationalist in any practical (working class) sense. The Zapatistas are.

Don't believe me? Read the 6th declaration.

(this is my translation + highlights)

Please read all my highlights. Especially points 3 and 4




"Invitation to Encounter between the Zapatistas towns and the towns of the world

Official notice of general clandestine committee revolutionary indígena-comandancia of army zapatista of national liberation. Mexico. Intergalactic commission - commission sixth. 2 of october of the 2006.

To the towns of the world. To and the adherents to the zezta the international of the five continents companions and companions: the ezln, through their intergalactic commission and its commission sixth, summons an encounter of towns zapatistas with the towns of the world.

First it will be for the 30, 31 of December of 2006 and 1st and 2nd of January of the 2007. To celebrate it in the oventik snail with the following objectives:

One. in order that different organizations, groups, groups and individual, individual of other countries,that fights, resist in five continents which they fight by the humanity and against the neoliberalism, that know the experiences fight and as they are organized with his government of the indigenous communities zapatistas, that they and they platiquen directly the five meetings of good government, with and the presents to that encounter.

Two. which towns zapatistas and their authorities know with their own voice of the experiences and histories of fight of other countries of the five continents that fight and resist by all of humanity and against capitalism.

Three. That the Zapatista towns and the organizations, groups, individual groups and, individual, of other countries, that fight and resist anywhere in the world against the neoliberalism and by humanity they are possible to be related directly without intermediary to offer to support and solidarity mutually.

Four. To propose and to decide average, ways and forms of communication between the organizations, groups, individual groups and, individual that fight and resist in the five continents.

Five. To give a message of breath to the fights that, against the power of the money, at the moment maintain towns in diverse points of the planet.
Sixth to make and to discuss proposals for the next intergalactic encounter, including dates and places. The second encounter will be for the 21st - 31st July 2007. To celebrate it in the five snails.

With such objective. 21 of July in snail oventik. Inauguration. 22 of July work. 23 of July to be transferred to the morelia snail. 24 of July work. 25 to be transferred to the snail de roberto districts. 26 work. 27 to be transferred to the snail of the pulley. 28 work. 29 to be transferred to the snail of the reality. 30 work and closing. 31 return to san cristóbal in each snail they participated, authorities of the marez and the meeting of good government, companions comandantas, companions commanders. Where they counted experiences of fight with its independent governments, but mainly so that we are discussing propose for the mere next intergalactic encounter, including dates and places.

From mountains of the Mexican Southeastern.

By the Clandestine Committee Revolutionary Native - Separate military command of the Army Zapatista de Liberación Nacional.
Lieutenant Colonel Insurgente Moisés.
Intergalactic commission of the EZLN.
Insurgent Subcommander Marcos.
Commission Sixth of the EZLN."


And just so you know, by snail, they loosely mean meeting place.

[Leo]

Urm, no that's absolutely rediculous, and the reason you've made this parrellell is because you didn't read my entire paragraph.

I did read you entire paragraph. You said this: "I'd say the opposite. Thier internationalist Rethoric makes the nationalist rethoric meaningless. Why? Because ones no more potant or meaningful than the other".

If you mean by the second part where you say: " But in reality they are internationalists, if we were to anylise the actions of their movement and not the words", I'm going to ask you what are those actions? Or what are the actions of the Zapatistas anyway? They have a 'liberated territory', their top guy occasionally tours the country with a motorcycle... and? What 'actions' can you list of their internationalism? Besides, this doesn't have that much to do with the first sentence. The first one was a theoretical hypothesis. This one is an assertion with no examples or sources behind it.


Allow me to reiterate. Stalin, Mao etc were not internationalist in any practical (working class) sense. The Zapatistas are. Don't believe me? Read the 6th declaration.


I read the 6th declaration, twice actually. In fact that is where my quotations about the defense of the national sovereignty are coming from. Anyway, they are calling for "ways and forms of communication between the organizations, groups, individual groups and, individual that fight and resist in the five continents." If this is the alleged 'internationalism' of the Zapatistas, than the Stalinists were much more internationalist than them! They had organizations that "fought and resisted" in the five continents who were not only communicating but coordinating their activity! Even other 'authoritarian' nationalist groups, such as the ones in South America, Africa, Middle East, South Asia and even Europe were much more far ahead in this sort of 'internationalism' than the Zapatistas!

[Forward Union]

If you mean by the second part where you say: " But in reality they are internationalists, if we were to anylise the actions of their movement and not the words", I'm going to ask you what are those actions?

I go on to talk about the Encuentros and the Zesta International later...

They have a 'liberated territory', their top guy occasionally tours the country with a motorcycle... and? What 'actions' can you list of their internationalism?


They had organizations that "fought and resisted" in the five continents who were not only communicating but coordinating their activity!

If that was for the interests of the working class then i'd fully support it and consider them internationalists. But it was just imperialism under a red flag. Are you comparing the Sexta International with the Soviet invasion of Europe? :lol:

Tell me, other than fighting for your interests locally whilst simultainiously organising with the revolutionary left abroad, facillitating communication abroad, and hopefully fighting abroad with eachother, what else can they do!?!?

What is the Communist League doing that makes them any more international than the zaps?

[Leo]

If that was for the interests of the working class then i'd fully support it and consider them internationalists.No offense, but I have a feeling that this could very well be what you would have done in that period. A way lot more people believed that they were truly defending the interests of the working class that the amount of people who think that Zapatistas defend the interests of the working class - which is something the Zapatistas don't even claim to do.


But it was just imperialism under a red flag.Generally speaking yes, but actually the Stalinist movement consisted of factions of different imperialist national bourgeoisies whose foreign policy favored a so-called socialist country rather than being complete agents of that country. Now considering that Zapatistas support the national capital and national sovereignty of Mexico, and considering that their international connections aren't likely to be much different from that - (if not very small groups of 'Zapatista Fans' in which case they wouldn't be doing much other than cheering for them), being either different 'national liberation' movements or groups which support this our that 'democratic' faction in their country, it's unlikely to be fundamentally different, although the difference in appearance could be massive.


Are you comparing the Sexta International with the Soviet invasion of Europe?Obviously not. I would say, however, that I don't expect it to be much different than the RIM ("Revolutionary Internationalist" Movement - Maoists ) for example.


Tell me, other than fighting for your interests locally whilst simultainiously organising with the revolutionary left abroad, facillitating communication abroad, and hopefully fighting abroad with eachother, what else can they do!?!?My point is that they are not fighting for the 'local' interests of the workers in a specific place, but for the interests of the 'nation'. This is why they have got nothing to do with internationalism and they will never have anything to do with it regardless of how many international connections they find.


What is the Communist League doing that makes them any more international than the zaps? Huh? How on earth should I know, I've got nothing to do with the Communist League. Besides what does that have to do with anything?

[Forward Union]

My point is that they are not fighting for the 'local' interests of the workers in a specific place, but for the interests of the 'nation'. This is why they have got nothing to do with internationalism and they will never have anything to do with it regardless of how many international connections they find.

This really is the Crux isn't it. I think the fact that they have created democratic soviets, having killed and chased off the land owners and collectived the land, with the intention of being an example to Mexico and the world, clearly shows that they are revoltutionary socialists. And nothing less.

Their nationalist rethoric doesn't rock my boat. Because their practical aims are exactly the same as mine, that is, the abolition of Neoliberalism and Capitalism, to be replaced with common ownership of the means of production, and directly-democratic soviets that hold regional soverignty.

[BIG BROTHER]

this tread is getting interesting...

[Devrim]

We don't believe that the peasantry, or the 'lumpen petite bourgeoisie' are [a revolutionary class]. That's not the universal communist oppinion though is it? I personally believe the material interests of the Peasantry and the proles are both opposed to capitalism and favour communist organisation.

Well, it depends what you mean by 'communist' doesn't it. Of course there are Maoists who go on about the peasantry being a revolutionary class. In our opinion Maoists have nothing to do with communism.

In the UK there is no peasant question. That does not mean that on an international scale it is not a hugely important one. For us the class interests of the peasantry make it an inherently reactionary strata. That is not to say that individual peasants can not be communists, or that large sectors of the peasantry can not be pulled behind the working class in the struggle for socialism. They are not a class though that is capable of making an internationalist socialist revolution.


I think the fact that they have created democratic soviets,

'Soviet' means workers' councils. They are not created by political organisations, but by the working class. A political organisation can call for the creation of workers' councils, but it can not create them. The working class creates them in periods of intense industrial/political struggle.

Are you really telling us that there are workers' councils in Mexico, or do you want to rethink that?

What I imagine is that they have some party controlled 'community councils'. The sort of thing that many other nationalist groups have set up in other parts of the world. I am sure that you can find some Maoist on here to tell us there are workers councils in Nepal. I don't believe that there are though. For us the main ideological difference between the movement in Nepal, and Chiapas is a little libertarian rhetoric.

...And it seems that given that anarchists are willing to abandon the working class, and take up what are essentially Maoist positions. That it ends up in supporting anti-working class movements is not at all surprising.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

In the UK there is no peasant question

To say the least :p


For us the class interests of the peasantry make it an inherently reactionary strata.

Before we discuss this, I find it helps to come up with agreed definitions. By Peasant, I mean an Agrucultural worker who lives in the countryside.

They are exploited for their labour, and have no ownership of the means of production. The workers in the cities cannot survive without the workers in the countryside, so I see them as ultimately the same class.


Are you really telling us that there are workers' councils in Mexico, or do you want to rethink that?

Yes, there are workers councils in Zapatista territory. Every few days they have local assemblies where all decisions are made in regard to the communities and the workplace.


What I imagine is that they have some party controlled 'community councils'. The sort of thing that many other nationalist groups have set up in other parts of the world.

Nope there is no party control of the assemblies, everyone can attend. The EZLN have no say in matters and are actually controlled by the decisions made in these assemblies.


...And it seems that given that anarchists are willing to abandon the working class, and take up what are essentially Maoist positions.


I don't think Peasants are seperable from Workers. Their interests are the same. This isn't a new anarchist position, the Ukranian revolution was built on the back of the Peasants (though it was not exclusively peasant) Similarly in Spain and Korea.

[Devrim]

Before we discuss this, I find it helps to come up with agreed definitions.
I agree.

By Peasant, I mean an Agrucultural worker who lives in the countryside.
I suggest you invest in a dictionary. What you define here is an agricultural labourer. A peasant is something completely different.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

I suggest you invest in a dictionary. What you define here is an agricultural labourer. A peasant is something completely different.


My dictionary says

a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, who are farmers or farm laborers of low social rank.

and dictionary.com says;



peasant


A farmer or agricultural worker of low status (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/status). The word is applied chiefly to agricultural workers in Asia (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Asia), Europe (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Europe), and South America (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/South%20America), who generally adhere to traditional agricultural practices and have little social mobility (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social%20mobility) or freedom.

[Devrim]

Get a better one. A peasant is somebody who owns their own land. In political terms it has never included agricultural labourers.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Get a better one. A peasant is somebody who owns their own land. In political terms it has never included agricultural labourers.

Well In parts of Chiapas the land owners were chased out and killed. The class divisions were so entreched it was basically a racial caste. Debts were passed on from father to son, and doubles every time. So, many workers were working for food not wages.

The same is true of the Peasants and campasinos of Spain and Ukraine who rallied behind Anarchist groups in the revolutions, they owned no land but were called peasants. The farm owners were always given different names.

So I don't agree with your definition but for claritys sake, when I say Peasant I mean agricultural worker.

[IronColumn]

Wat,

I'm wondering if you've read the 6th declaration. In it the Zapatistas declare their support for Cuba and send them some food, support Che, and give shout outs to the social-democrat regimes in Venezuela and Bolivia. I had never read any of their stuff before I read it for myself, I guess I just trusted people, but it doesn't seem like they've changed much since their 1994 'defense of la patria' which is not anarchism in the least. Also I believe that their communal councils were created quite a few years after their initial uprising, which I believe says something about their 'spontaneity'. In my view this is like supporting Chavez since he has some "worker councils" in a few factories. I can't help but believe this is in some way related to the WSM's provisional support for nationalization of gas in Ireland. But the EZLN is quite clear it's a heirarchical army, which makes a comparison to Ukraine or Spain a bit hard, besides the fact that those were armies from a social revolution, not a putsch.

[Forward Union]

In it the Zapatistas declare their support for Cuba and send them some food, support Che, and give shout outs to the social-democrat regimes in Venezuela and Bolivia

No, they praise parts of these people and projects. But the fact is the Zapatistas are wrong about a lot of things, they're not the second coming. But I am willing to put aside certain ideological misgivings to make practical gains and have influence.


but it doesn't seem like they've changed much since their 1994 'defense of la patria'

Have you read the first declaration? They advocated mass working class revolution in all of Mexico to destroy the state and neoliberalism...(it was rediculously grand)


Also I believe that their communal councils were created quite a few years after their initial uprising, which I believe says something about their 'spontaneity'

Urm. hmm. Actually the Mayan tradition in Chiapas has always been directly democratic. Marcos was a maoist originally, and his authorotarian forms of organisign didn't wash well. He claimed that when he first got there the EZLN was about 10 men strong. After four years, it was 15. He started listening to the people and propsed changes to the original stucture and eventually created a far more democratic social model, with far more popular support.

The councils existed prior to 1994. The EZLN was not ready for war, but the people democratically mandated it to go to war, against the personal wishes of it's commanders.

More power was given to them after the means of production were taken back in the first days of the revolution. Formal structures were put in later.


In my view this is like supporting Chavez since he has some "worker councils" in a few factories

That was imposed top down, not bottom up.



But the EZLN is quite clear it's a heirarchical army, which makes a comparison to Ukraine or Spain a bit hard, besides the fact that those were armies from a social revolution, not a putsch


You realise the Ukranian army, and the CNTs millitias were all hierachical aswell right? With commanders that imposed execution.

That's how armies have to be. An army is an inherantly bad thing, but is neccisarry at times.

[Devrim]

I don't really know what to say about this. You seem to think that a working class revolution is happening in Chiapas. We don't. Is this the AF'S position?
Devrim

[Forward Union]

I don't really know what to say about this. You seem to think that a working class revolution is happening in Chiapas. We don't. Is this the AF'S position?
Devrim

The AF doesn't have positions on anything (really). But generally I think people critically support the Zapatistas in the same way I do.

I wouldn't say there is revolution, but the class war is certainly hot over there.

[Devrim]

I wouldn't say there is revolution, but the class war is certainly hot over there.

Hang on a second, a few posts ago you were saying that their were Soviets. Now, you are saying that there isn't a revolutionary situation.

Do you think that Soviets emerge outside of revolutionary situations?

In our opinion there isn't a revolutionary situation, and there are not Soviets.

If you think that there are, it would have enormous consequence to the working class internationally.


The AF doesn't have positions on anything (really).

This I believe.


But generally I think people critically support the Zapatistas in the same way I do.

Do they think there are soviets? Do they think that there is a revolution?

These are really crucial questions.

Anyway, we have strayed a long way from my original point (that petitions are liberal nonsense). I think that the discussion on the peasant question is worth having (maybe on another thread, maybe you should use words as others do. You are not Humpty Dumpty.)

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Hang on a second, a few posts ago you were saying that their were Soviets. Now, you are saying that there isn't a revolutionary situation.[quote]

Well I would say it's a stagnant revolution, the workers councils do not have complete autonomy, they manage the land, yes, but they do so within capitalism. They are more comparable to the self-run factories in argentina than the free territories of ukraine.

[QUOTE]Do you think that Soviets emerge outside of revolutionary situations?

Well if a council had complete control over the land, and the terms on which it's worked, then there must be a revolution.

I believe that regions can be self managed to a certain extent inside of capitalism, but these are unsustainable, and very rare.


Do they think there are soviets? Do they think that there is a revolution?

As you post on libcom I'd invite you to ask them yourself.



Anyway, we have strayed a long way from my original point (that petitions are liberal nonsense). I think that the discussion on the peasant question is worth having (maybe on another thread, maybe you should use words as others do. You are not Humpty Dumpty.)


I am yet to see a dictonary that contradicts my understanding of peasant, so I am lead to believe it's you that's got the wrong term. But I'll happily say "agricultural workers" if you prefer.

In which case we can say tha the 'peasants were all chased out by the Zapatistas in 1994.

[Devrim]

I am yet to see a dictonary that contradicts my understanding of peasant, so I am lead to believe it's you that's got the wrong term.

This is the first one I found:


A peasant, derived from 15th century French païsant meaning one from the pays, the countryside or region, which itself derives from the Latin pagus, country district, is an agricultural worker with roots in the countryside in which he or she dwells, either working for others or, more specifically, owning or renting and working by his or her own labour a small plot of ground. The term peasant today is sometimes used in a pejorative sense for impoverished farmers.


But I'll happily say "agricultural workers" if you prefer.

I think that it makes a discussion easier if people use the same terms. My usage is the general one used within the working class movement.


In which case we can say tha the 'peasants were all chased out by the Zapatistas in 1994.

Even the small peasants? I don't think so. I think that this is a problem with the terms again.


the workers councils do not have complete autonomy, they manage the land, yes, but they do so within capitalism. They are more comparable to the self-run factories in argentina than the free territories of ukraine.
...
I believe that regions can be self managed to a certain extent inside of capitalism, but these are unsustainable, and very rare.

Of course there can be self-management within capital. The question is whether there is anything socialist about it. I don't think that there is.


Well I would say it's a stagnant revolution,

This seems to be clutching at straws a bit.


As you post on libcom I'd invite you to ask them yourself.

To me this seems a real strange response. What you appear to be saying is that there is no agreement, and I should ask individuals. However, if there were Soviets in Chiapas, it would be something of immense importance that I think that you would have to have a position on it.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Even the small peasants? I don't think so. I think that this is a problem with the terms again.

Well the situation in 1993 was pretty polarised, there was the landless mayans, and the very wealthy hispanics and Mestizos. Not a lot of grey area, but, presumably there were small land owners who may even have been indigeanous.

Their land has been collectivised so they're not land owners anymore.

There are lots of 'rumors' of the zapatistas burning the houses down of political opponants (not land owners) and killing r terrorising people. It could be to do with small land owners who opposed colelctivisation.


I don't think that there is.

Well, not in and of itself.


To me this seems a real strange response. What you appear to be saying is that there is no agreement, and I should ask individuals.

If you ask me for the AFs position on anything other than Capitalism or Anarchism then that's the responce you'll get. Even if there was a fucking global anarchist revolution the AF fundementally opposes having oppinions on things.

I am desperately trying to change this.

[Devrim]

So if you don't think that self management within capitalism is revolutionary 'in and of itself' in what way is it revolutionary?
Devrim