I read a little about the Zapatistas and Subcomandante Marcos. He says he prefers not to be called a revolutionary but a rebel, because revolutionaries lead from the top, rather than from the bottom. But isn’t this just voluntarily putting oneself in a perpetual state of subjugation, based on the assumption that there will always exist antagonism between the government and the people? This is where anarchism falls apart. A socialist government is the people. Not wanting to take over the government out of a belief that all government is bad and wrong dismissing the entire point of having an ideologically motivated cause and movement that guides ones actions – and that if a government is guided by the principles of serving the people, then it can become a force for good – the real meaning of democracy: the dictatorship of the proletariat. In such a scenario, we have done away with traditional, repressive forms of government, and therefore, the antagonism between government and people has dissolved away. Anarchy, therefore, is a reactionary force because it encourages people to come to terms with the powers that are subjugating them and participate in and endless struggle with no strategy nor end goal. One’s self-imposed identity is that of an oppressed individual living in an unsurmountable situation. Struggle becomes the means and the end, rather than a means for a greater goal – liberation.
That is, unless I am missing something. We all know wikipedia is not the most reliable source, esp. for leftist information.
The EZLN is more of a coalition. The subcomandantes add the “sub” in there to show deference to the people, whose power is expressed primary through a confederation of tribal governments acting in unison. The EZLN is the arm through which the tribal governments express their will, rather than being the head. It seems to be working for them given how relatively stable their borders are compared to like…the Naxalites.
The reason they don’t expand to all of mexico is because the coalition is primarily concerned with tribal matters. They would partner with mestizo labor movements in northern Mexico if they had any teeth. But they see mexicans as needing a movement for mexicans, not a movement for Maya people.