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.
Yeah, I’m not entirely sure what the Zapatista movement is besides an experiment in indigenous sovereignty. I think that should be respected even if it doesn’t have an explicit ML structure or practice. I think their form of leadership and govt works for them for now, and I trust that they are on the right path for their people and that their govt represents their people. Maybe in time they will change, but maybe they won’t. Regardless of this possibility, their indigenous sovereignty should be above anything we might agree or disagree with since indigenous peoples around the world have historically been denied the privilege of sovereignty.
The Zapatista movement is understandably reclusive and suspicious of outsiders and non natives. They are not going to be super open about how they run things since Mexico is still a very anti-communist, post McCarthyist nation, albeit less so than USA. Cuba didn’t explicitly say that they were socialist until after they rose to power. I’m guessing that the Zapatista movements don’t want to attract CIA attention either. So it’s safer just to say you’re anarchists and call it a day so that you don’t have to worry so much ab getting infiltrated. But that just a few of the possible reasons I could imagine as to why they behave and portray themselves in this way.
This would be a very wise strategy to have and I really hope it is the case. But eventually, a movement needs to show its true colors in order to gain the maximum amount of popularsupport. Gaining enemies comes with the territory (no pun intended)
I think some anarchists like the zapatistas support the actual concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, they’re just scared of the word dictatorship, and oppose AES because they were willing to call their state a state and defend themselves b/c it’s authowitarian (not that the zapatistas themselves were bad at defending themselves)
“Reactionary” is really the only word for it in my eyes. There are many humans who have a half-baked idea that sounds half-reasonable. But they are incapable of digging deeper to arrive at an evolved conclusion. If they did they would either have to rationalize anti-civ or hyper-individualist conclusions, which unfortunately many anarchists eventually come to. You have to rationalize increasingly bizarre, unrealistically pessimistic/misanthropic, and out-of-touch idealistic worldviews to dig deeper and still think anarchism is the ideology for good.
Of course, many do not even think that deeply, and are happy lobotomizing themselves intellectually and maintaining a petulant, spoiled, whiny disposition. I find it no surprise that anarchism is so particularly popular in the Western online.
My hatred for anarchism has renewed recently when a couple decided me saying “don’t listen to Western media about the rest of the world” was somehow racist, colonialist, white savior complex etc. The projection was intense. And then saw the same people bragging about how getting the 50+ needless subvariants of an ideology that has never existed in real life is like “herding cats” and how this is somehow a good thing. Imagine bragging about how frustratingly difficult it is to mobilize adherents to an umbrella ideology to do literally anything because of their petty, miniscule differences in how everybody thinks the Instant Utopia would arise.
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.
