they have the popular support, but nothing is written in stone. a good deal of international solidarity will be nessisary i imagine
Results 21 to 40 of 61
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.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.41
theweekylspectrum.wordpress.com - my Blog
"The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win
and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but
reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional
catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility."
-- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
they have the popular support, but nothing is written in stone. a good deal of international solidarity will be nessisary i imagine
No, but lots of other people are and you are inciting the illusions of others even if you are not under any illusions.
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.
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)
Last edited by Leo; 11th February 2008 at 22:22.
"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx
Pale Blue Jadal
On revleft?
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'd suggest they go there and help in person, or post them medecine
"How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right, stay pure! What good will it do? Why did you join us? Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and Bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing. To do nothing, to remain motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kids gloves. Well, I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in the filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you'll govern innocently?"-Jean-Paul Sartre
Yeah on RevLeft.
On the two grounds you listed, I'd say:
Yep. They carry the national flag and sing the national anthem regularly.
Yep, they are for "a full and coordinated defence of national sovereignty".
"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx
Pale Blue Jadal
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
"[FONT=Arial]Mexicans, at the cry of war,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]prepare the steel and the steed,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]and may the earth shake at its core[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]to the resounding roar of the cannon. "[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]and [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]"and the resonant echoes[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]cry out Union, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Liberty!"[/FONT]
not too shabby!
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.
"How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right, stay pure! What good will it do? Why did you join us? Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and Bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing. To do nothing, to remain motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kids gloves. Well, I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in the filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you'll govern innocently?"-Jean-Paul Sartre
Yeah, so because the American flag was born out of a revolutionary tradition, waving it is completely acceptable
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.
It sounds nationalist and militarist.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx
Pale Blue Jadal
No because culturally that has a completely different meaning.
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 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"
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.
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)
A = A
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
"How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right, stay pure! What good will it do? Why did you join us? Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and Bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing. To do nothing, to remain motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kids gloves. Well, I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in the filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you'll govern innocently?"-Jean-Paul Sartre
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
"How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right, stay pure! What good will it do? Why did you join us? Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and Bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing. To do nothing, to remain motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kids gloves. Well, I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in the filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you'll govern innocently?"-Jean-Paul Sartre
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"
"How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right, stay pure! What good will it do? Why did you join us? Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and Bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing. To do nothing, to remain motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kids gloves. Well, I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in the filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you'll govern innocently?"-Jean-Paul Sartre
My respects for both Leo and Wat...
[FONT=Arial Black]WAR IS PEACE!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH![/FONT]
-INGSOC slogans
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.
This is the first step towards open support for nationalism. Next you will be talking about the difference between 'oppressive', and 'oppressed' nations.Originally Posted by Wat Tyler
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.Originally Posted by Leo
It is always the same. It is amazing how many leftists fall head over heals for nationalism when she dresses herself up in red.
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.Originally Posted by Wat Tyler
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.Originally Posted by Wat Tyler
Devrim
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?
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.
"El ideal del P.S.O.E. es la completa emancipación de la clase trabajadora; Es decir, la abolición de todas las clases sociales y su declaración y conversión en una sola clase de trabajadores, dueños del fruto de su trabajo, libres, iguales, honrados e inteligentes." -Pablo Iglesias (founder of PSOE and UGT)
"Quienes contraponen liberalismo y socialismo, o no conocen el primero o no saben los verdaderos objetivos del segundo." -Pablo Iglesias
Art. 1.º España es una República democrática de trabajadores de toda clase, que se
organiza en régimen de Libertad y de Justicia.
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.
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.
Good to hear that we are doing our job here properly.
We already had enough who were painting nationalism red, and now we have people who are trying to paint it red and black.
Last edited by Leo; 12th February 2008 at 09:50.
"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx
Pale Blue Jadal
I will debate the nationalist accusation but I've never said Anarchists should defend a state!
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.
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.
"How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right, stay pure! What good will it do? Why did you join us? Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and Bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing. To do nothing, to remain motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kids gloves. Well, I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in the filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you'll govern innocently?"-Jean-Paul Sartre
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.
San Cristobal, Tuxla, San Adreas, Huitepec, Oventic, La Morelia, Las Margaritas and La Realidad.
"How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right, stay pure! What good will it do? Why did you join us? Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and Bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing. To do nothing, to remain motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kids gloves. Well, I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in the filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you'll govern innocently?"-Jean-Paul Sartre
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.
Last edited by black magick hustla; 12th February 2008 at 18:17.
Formerly dada
[URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
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
"How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right, stay pure! What good will it do? Why did you join us? Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and Bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing. To do nothing, to remain motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kids gloves. Well, I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in the filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you'll govern innocently?"-Jean-Paul Sartre
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".
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!!!
Sounds pretty nationalist.
Since you are into this sort of stuff, please tell me what you think of these lines:
Do you see a pattern?
Last edited by Leo; 12th February 2008 at 22:08.
"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx
Pale Blue Jadal
