Re: AUT: Re:Sylvie and George

["Shawn P. Wilbur" <swilbur@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:

> I would like to add that by raising questions about the *possible* symbolic
> significance of Chiapas (indian assertion or, even better, post-Leninist
> forms of action), I did not mean to short-circuit discussion of  the very
> powerful ab irato critique of EZLN. I found the history of the implantation
> strategy and the structure of the EZLN, including its refusal of support to
> guerrila actions it does not control (including by "fellow" indians), to be
> a tremendously important contribution. And I think there has to be a more
> substantive reply to this critique than the suggestion that it reeks of so
> called first world cynicism.

Perhaps other folks are reading a different text than i am. Otherwise, i
find it hard to fathom how what is present can count as a "history of the
implantation strategy" or any sort of critique of the "strategy and the
structure of the EZLN." The section which covers implantation is, in
fact, hardly a *history* at all - more a quasi-historical patchwork which
finally has as its object of study a general "Mexican Maoism" which is,
once again, little better than a "type." That an actual, historical
connection between this "movement" and the EZLN is not established -
perhaps can't be established using available historical evidence - is
explicitly unimportant, as we are told that the link nonetheless must
exist. Pardon me for finding this no more convincing than the view
attributed to the "leftist tourist," who sees only what s/he wants to
see.

> In short, I had no intention of
> short-circuiting a discussion of the grave problems in the first world
> support lent to the EZLN.

Nor do i, but there have to be some more concrete critiques out there, if
there are indeed "grave problems" - beyond the usual problem of the
left's general disarray (which we can hardly blame on the zapatistas.) So
far, the most specific criticisms i have heard of "strategy and
structure" within the zapatista movement have come from the EZLN itself.
The interview sections posted here (in December or so?) and the video
interview, "Word & History," with Marcos are rich with cautions about
idealizing indigenous community politics.

Can the anti-EZLN folks present, for example, actual instances of Marcos
acting the part of caudillo, rather than just dressing like one? All
"sides" in these debates seem to be working with little in the way of
actual data. To move on, we need to be able to clearly separate various
sorts of supposition from whatever historical facts we have.

-shawn

> Best,
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---