Zapatistas under attack

[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?

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

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. The word is applied chiefly to agricultural workers in Asia, Europe, and South America, who generally adhere to traditional agricultural practices and have little social mobility 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]

[quote=Devrim;1074143]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.

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.