Re: AUT: more on Zapatismo

[Montyneill <Montyneill@xxxxxxx>]

In a message dated 98-03-26 12:55:39 EST, Geoff wrote:

<< Paul has, I think accurately, identified what is new about the Zaps
 -- they aren't seeking to conquer the state as much as to find a niche
 within the state that is in the process of recomposition as a result of the
 obsolesence of the PRI's ownership of state assets.     	
  >>

I was holding off responding to the discussion about the zapatistas till this
Sat. when I think I will have time to really write something. The problem with
Geoff's assertion is that Paul's like, like most of what is in "Silvie and
Charles" (beyond the obvious and well known point that Marcos and a few other
urban marxists went to Chiapas..) is that it rests on no demonstrable evidence
-- or at least no demonstrated evidence. Where is there actual evidence,
beyond ideological supposition (if that counts as "evidence") that the
zapatistas in general or Marcos in particular want to participate in the state
apparatus? Absent evidence, it is merely political slander. Recently it was
suggested also (I need to reread to see if S&C claim this) that the assembly
form was created by the urbanites (e.g., Marcos), while in fact the assembly
form is common in indigenous communities in Mexico (which does not make them
perfect democracies or even necessarily democratic -- but does not mean they
are not democratic either). And where is the evidence that a couple of white
guys control and manipulate the indigenous communities -- aside from a few
left critics and the Mexican governments unsupported (and I think indeed
racist) assertions.

Also, to Katha, while we can in retrospect see much problematic about
Sandinistas and FMLN (and much could be seen at the time), your remarks
constitute a cavalier dismissal of the struggles of many people. It is
saddening if the FMLN supports austerity, but that is the consequence of
defeat -- and we all should know the FMLN could not win against the US state
without a far more massive level of support than they got. Ortega is not and
was not the sum of the Sandinista struggle. Yes, blind glorification of the
guerilla is not only not helpful it is self-defeating. But the EZLN does not
ask that we follow them, but does ask that we collaborate with them against
our common enemy. What they have unleashed as intensified many forms of left
activity in Mexico, from the Indigenous Congress to spurring new urban
coalitions (some of whom have serious critiques of aspects of the EZLN while
acknowledging support for and indebtedness to them) -- and significant amounts
of this are seeking political ground that is not leninist or maoist or
guevarist or social democratic. They have helped significantly in blocking the
expansion of NAFTA. They spurred the intercontinentals, which were certainly
not organized to glorify or follow the EZLN -- indeed, the second was in my
opinion sadly deficient in not organizing space for a serious, critical
discussion of the Zapatista support work (tho some of us tried at the last
minute to organize such a discussion). What is being presented as a critique
of the EZLN seems to bear no real resemblance to what is going on, for the
most part, in the zapatista communities, in Mexico, or in international
support efforts.

But then I don't think much of this would-be criticism of the zapatistas is
about paying attention to evidence or contributing to a serious assessment, it
is about ideological proclivities and preconceptions which appear to act as
blindfolds. Too bad.

I will try to provide details of conversations and observations, some of which
will bolster I think my points above, this weekend.

Monty


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