"We don't have relations with governments, whether they are good or bad"
said Marcos. "We have relations with the people. And we have a lot of
respect for the Bolivian people."

The statement by Marcos puts to rest reports in some Bolivian and
international news media that the Zapatistas would be attending the
inauguration of Bolivia's first indigenous president: reports that had
raised eyebrows across the continent because the indigenous Zapatistas shun
relations with political parties and the government in Mexico.

"And if the Bolivian people say yes, well, we respect it," added Marcos,
"but we don't attend inaugurations for governments whether good or bad. Our
way is more like what we are doing right now. That is how we have achieved
all that we have won." Later in the afternoon, in larger meeting with social
fighters and sympathizers from the region, Marcos said about Mexican
reality, in words that apply to all lands: "There might even be sometimes a
candidate that wins with a good program. But as long as the problem of the
system is not solved, the problems will repeat over and over again."

Still later, at a public meeting with 700 Chetumal-area residents, Marcos -
speaking of this year's national elections in Mexico - forecasted that "the
party in power will have different colors but will not change the system,"
and invoked those present to "unite all the small struggles and then we will
make a real change in this country."

Marcos - traveling the Mexican Republican with the civilian handle of
"Delegate Zero" - made these remarks during his first full day of meetings
outside of Chiapas. The rebel spokesman arrived yesterday to Chetumal,
capital of the coastal state of Quintana Roo, where he will hold meetings
and public events through Tuesday before moving on to nearby Yucata'n state
and later across the nation.

During today's session with adherents to the Other Campaign - constructing a
national anti-capitalist political movement "from below and to the left" -
Delegate Zero presented various political organizers, an environmental
advocate, and an "other journalist" from the alternative media to share
their knowledge in key areas of struggle - the crisis that grips the peasant
farmer, Plan Puebla Panama's development plans for the region, protecting
the environment and constructing alternate media - with local allies. Full
reports (including audio and video: in the meantime see the online video
newsreel Delegate Zero Nears Quintana Roo, with an xray of the struggles
Marcos found alive and fighting here today) are forthcoming from the Other
Journalism here on Narco News, but, first, your correspondents are still
reporting the days events.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes, but the name. How did you come up with that?

---

I think he was monikered Subcommandante to say although he is the public voice, he isnt in fact the supreme leader, that in fact he is lower rank then the other commanders of the Zapatista movement.

[ 19 January 2006: Message edited by: Jeb616 ]

Zapatistas on six-month tour across Mexico (contains obituary of another Zapatista leader and spokesperson, Comandanta Ramona)

The other way: the Zapatistas' new direction (links to In Cahoots article)

[ 19 January 2006: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

Its the silly name and the pipe and the backlit photos that drive me crazy.

Would have thunk it. Just like a movie.

Peope like Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro, etc. etc. spent their entire pubic lives without need of playing smoke and mirror games.

Marcos pays for the North American and European student audience, and it works like a charm, apparently.

"The history of revolutions is one of people who stood up to be counted in plain face."

And in the case of those of the black panthers, they get decimated. Give yourself too much of a structure to the biopolitical machine and it can fuck you in ways that nightmares can't describe.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, Marcos has accomplished exactly *none* of his stated objectives, and the village or two or three under Zapatista control are as poverty-stricken as they have ever been. So he can have his idiotic brand of grassroots revolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
LOL, Marcos is hardly an egoist(that would certainly be an improvement). My whole problem with him is that he still carries some guerverist baggage. Part of what might tick off the run of the mill leftist is that the Zaps use somewhat non formally structured tactics. You needn't only look at Iraq to see how succesfull these tactics are.

"The history of revolutions is one of people who stood up to be counted in plain face."

And in the case of those of the black panthers, they get decimated. Give yourself too much of a structure to the biopolitical machine and it can fuck you in ways that nightmares can't describe.

---

And Alan, the problems you described are ones due to the Mexican state. Obviously if a revolution happened in the same matter in that country and subsequently north america, things would be somewhat nicer. The point is however that the Zapatista model as such(destroying the power structure and not recuperating it) is how all models should operate. And do so in as anti-authoritarian and non-instrumental a way as possible, from which as much decentralization as possible can occur.

[ 21 January 2006: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

In fact I will add to my question/comment. Do you think that any ideer of decentralization to a localized small scale level is rightwing?

[ 21 January 2006: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

So, if you don't like the way he communicates, that's cool, I find him a tad impenetrable myself. But that has little to do with how the Zapatistas are running their political resistance. If you want to critique that, critique it, but going from "I think Marcos is a jerk and I hate the way he talks" to "Therefore the Zapatistas are a bunch of idiots" is ludicrous nonsense.

And the fact is that while I don't like his writing/speaking style that much, and you may not either, lots of people both in Anglo-land and Mexico seem to find him compelling. That suggests to me that he's doing his job effectively. Let's not forget that traditions of literary artifice are not unique to the English speaking world; Latin American writers have been talking plenty weird for a long time.

I also think that to a fair extent, Marcos is intentionally acting as a smoke screen. He ponces about flamboyantly and focusses attention so that the Zapatistas can get on with things in the background without being harassed too much.

As to the Zapatistas themselves, I like their style. They seem to make their decisions in a very grass-roots-oriented, consensus kind of way. They seem very inclusive. They seem to recognize that if they're going to fight for rights, to be consistent they have to fight for everybody's--not just native rights against the whites, but women's rights, gay rights, everyone. They probably aren't there, but they see that it's an issue (which goes to show that these kinds of things are not just an urban middle class issue; equality of everyone is equality of everyone, and the principle applies whether the people striving to take equality seriously are Canadian suburbanites or indigenous Mexican peasants).

quote:

---

I'd say they're going to need a high degree of centrally focused and organized effort to achieve at least some of those goals. Wouldn't you agree, von Vigilante ?.

---

The simple problem with this logic is that the Zapatistas and the indigenous peasants are not asking for a centralized force to give them this. All of the things you mentioned can be done in a localized reciporical(as opposed to redistributive) manner. If you bother to read them you would know that their rejection of centralized/statist authority has been to this point unflinching.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:

The simple problem with this logic is that the Zapatistas and the indigenous peasants are not asking for a centralized force to give them this. All of the things you mentioned can be done in a localized reciporical(as opposed to redistributive) manner.

---

Now you're stumbling because you have no idea what they've been asking for. What the Zapatistas want, V, is a voice at the table. The PRI was able to appease the poor in Chiapas with a few left-leaning table scraps, but they have no real intention to implement any kind of social democracy for the people of Chiapas who are dying of curable diseases and suffering malnutrition - the usual causes for rebellion against an imperialism disguised as "liberal democracy." The people of Chiapas are tired of having their way of life dictated to by bureaucrats at SPP and PRONASOL. In fact, the Zapatistas have no plans for your proposed 360 degree economic paradigm shift to total anarchy based on subsistence existence, V. They want inclusion and a voice in power. They want to be a part of Mexico and for the Mexican government to recognize their needs.

quote:

---

If you bother to read them you would know that their rejection of centralized/statist authority has been to this point unflinching.

---

Another tautological statement from you. You have a penchant for saying nothing when you're in a bind. Ever notice that ?

Edited to add: They're already living a subsistence existence, V. They've got nothing. They don't want home schooling and do-it-yourself medicine. The people want their kids to have access to schools and hospitals and jobs, and just like anywhere else in the world, the people want social justice!.

[ 21 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

In fact, the Zapatistas have no plans for your proposed 360 degree economic paradigm shift to total anarchy based on subsistence existence, V.

---

Well I wouldn't go as far as to say its anarchy, but it is certainly subsistance and that has certainly happened. What they want is to preserve their local autonomy from the state. If the state has to recognise anything(which they won't) it is that. They're not running any candidates in the elections, and they most certainly are not supporting that leftist mayor.

quote:

---

Another tautological statement from you. You have a penchant for saying nothing when you're in a bind. Ever notice that ?

Edited to add: They're already living a subsistence existence, V. They've got nothing. They don't want home schooling and do-it-yourself medicine. The people want their kids to have access to schools and hospitals and jobs, and just like anywhere else in the world, the people want social justice!.

---

LOL you should be the last person acusing anyone of tautological reasoning. Really Fidel go read what Zapatismo stands for sometime and stop seeing things in your silly stalinist bineries.

Heres another piece for you

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060120142744681

some key quotes

"The announcement of the Other Campaign, timed to coincide with the 2006 Mexican presidential race and set to begin with a march and mass rally in San Cristobal on January 1st, has been met with both excitement and trepidation throughout the country. Although the EZLN has stopped short of calling for a boycott of the national elections, many liberals fear that their condemnation of the PRD will tip the polls in favor of the center-right National Action Party (PAN), or the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) –which is also on the right. At present, Andres Manuel Lopez, former Mayor of Mexico City, of the PRD, maintains an eleven-point lead in the polls over his closest rival, Roberto Madrazo of the PRI.
"

and

"One demonstrator, Ugel, a student from Mexico City who came to Chiapas to show his support for the EZLN and the Other Campaign told me, “I support the organizing of all the people. [The Other Campaign] is about the people making their own organization so they can decide [things] for themselves instead of one person [the president] deciding for all. I think this movement is going to make a new political structure for the participation of farmers, students, and workers. That is what the political class has not allowed for eighty or ninety years.”"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatistas

"Presently, the Zapatistas are offering more nonviolent resistance. They reject parliamentary elections at the national level because they see such elections as not involving participation by the people in a meaningful way and therefore, as not truly democratic. (See Anarchism.) The Zapatistas have organized a network of grass-roots based democratic village councils in their autonomous region, and have set up schools, courts, and clinics. The most recent large demonstration was a 2001 march to Mexico City with only very scattered episodes of violence. Since the late 1990's, the movement has been involved in an introspective series of Councils of Good Government within their realm of influence. While the rebellion may appear to be in somewhat of a standstill, the people are still very active in their attempts to acquire autonomy. The government remains reluctant to address the rebellion because doing so might lend an impression of political instablity. In 2005, the EZLN held a summit, the result of which was the Sixth Declaration from the Lacondon Jungle. This document reflects many Marxist ideas."

BOOYA!

[ 21 January 2006: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

[ 21 January 2006: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
"In 2005, the EZLN held a summit, the result of which was the Sixth Declaration from the Lacondon Jungle. This document reflects many Marxist ideas."
wikipedia.org

BOOYA!

---

[ 21 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
...And the fact is that while I don't like his writing/speaking style that much, and you may not either, lots of people both in Anglo-land and Mexico seem to find him compelling. ... I also think that to a fair extent, Marcos is intentionally acting as a smoke screen. ...

As to the Zapatistas themselves, ... They seem to recognize that if they're going to fight for rights, to be consistent they have to fight for everybody's--not just native rights against the whites, but women's rights, gay rights, everyone. ...

And as to their results-- ... I think they've acted as something of a catalyst for political change in the rest of Mexico, which we may start seeing the fruits of as time goes by. I won't say that if there's a centre-left victory in the upcoming elections it would be because of them--certainly not. But they've had an impact. They've shifted the terms of political discourse, they've survived while acting as a good example, and their nonviolence has made it difficult for the Mexican government to declare them the enemy outsider.... Given where they started and how little power or money they've ever had, their record is pretty damned good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Ah Fidel I thought you meant the Marxist ideas part. Certainly Marxian ideas in some form or another have always for better or worse been a part of radical discourse. He had a good critique of captital afterall. Marxist ideas does not mean vanguardist/red fascist ideas.

John Holloway(big proponent of the zapatista model) for instance is a Marxist however he is a one with an anti-authoritarian outlook.

---

You anarchists, with a lower case "a", had better build a damned good wall to keep out the real fascists, that's all I have to say. You won't be balling about red fascists when you have no land whatseover to till because feudal land barons have stolen it from under your noses. You won't be crying about red fascists when you're paying a third of your wages for drinking water as they've already tried to pull in the poorest of poor third world capitalist nations. You'll have all the freedom to die of a curable disease, malnutrition or sheer boredom in any shithole corner of their poverty-stricken state-capitalist world. If the imperialists do allow anarchists crown land to squat on, it'll be the least arable, most worthless land you've ever set eyes on. I think you'd better start cozying up to the idea of soup kitchen capitalism, or picking bananas or cutting sugar cane from sunup to sundown. Because under a real fascist regime, your life chances will be determined for you by true state-capitalism.

Viva la revolution!

[ 21 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
What is this shit?

So, if you don't like the way he communicates, that's cool, I find him a tad impenetrable myself. But that has little to do with how the Zapatistas are running their political resistance. If you want to critique that, critique it, but going from "I think Marcos is a jerk and I hate the way he talks" to "Therefore the Zapatistas are a bunch of idiots" is ludicrous nonsense.

---

I didn't say that the Zapatistas are a bunch of idiots. I said Marcos bugs me. Where did I say otherwise?

The Zapatistas have not been able to break out of Chiapas, and their gains there have been minimal at best. This is partially due to their cautious go slow approach to involving the rest of Mexican civil society, a mistep they have belatedly realized wasn't helping their cause. Hence, Marcos has struck out as Delegate Zero. When I first heard this new name (like Prince changing his name), I just had to shake my head, especially when the last few communiques were so garbled as to seemingly indicate Marcos was going a bit crazy.

How he's going to deal with AMLO will be interesting. Obrador has already tried to sound moderate by distancing himself from Hugo Chavez, and taking a firm line on crime. He is definitely a Third Way Blairite social democrat, but hopefully he can move back to his roots. We'll see if Delegate Zero has any impact.

[ 23 January 2006: Message edited by: ceti ]

Part of the problem is as I said, people in more industrial heavy areas tend to be less libertarian then peasants. Obviously environmental effects play a part, but none the less it is a serious problem in my view. An essential ingrediant of revolution is a return to subsistance as far as I'm concerned.

[ 23 January 2006: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Part of the problem is as I said, people in more industrial heavy areas tend to be more libertarian then the traditional "working class". Obviously environmental effects play a part, but none the less it is a serious problem in my view. An essential ingrediant of revolution is a return to subsistance as far as I'm concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Personally, I think it is very unlikely that the subsistence farmers whom you are talking about are likely not to know who Bakunin is. I also think it would be possible to make a some readings of Cambodian history where Pol Pot's death camps were examples of collectivized sunsistance farming.

---

It's strange how the Hollywood demonized Pol Pot in the film, The Killing Fields, and all the while the US government aided and abetted the Khmer Rouge with raiding parties into Vietnam. Yankee generals believed that the Ho Chi Minh trail had taken a diversion along Cambodia, and they may have been right although underestimated on the numbers of VC using it.

The Khmer Mon tribesmen, trained and armed by US Green Berets, were still marauding into Vietnam up til just a few years ago. Older American texts, and current ones for that matter, are somewhat silent on the doctor and the madman's secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia leading up to the killing field years made infamous in the Hollywood movie. I think the Khmer Rouge movement was usurped by a bourgeoise middle class authority structure supported by a peasant army who believed wrongly that their new direction was Marxist-Leninism but were, in fact, pursuing fascist eltitism. They forced intellectuals and workers alike into the countryside to farm a land that was devastated by more than a half million tons of American bombs and millions of gallons of Monsanto's dioxin-based defoliants creating many regions still unfarmable today due to unexploded ordinance and craters. Many died of over-work and malnutrition, a situation compounded by USian attempts to annihilate the agricultural economy of Cambodia.

With all that they cannot trade for or buy because of an embargo with long tentacles, Cuban's
are lucky to live on a lush and green tropical island in some ways. It's difficult for Latin American's to starve to death, although malnutrition was evident in Cuba in the 1990's after the USSR stopped bartering with Cuba. The Cuban's have had to put up with the blocking of humanitarian aid as had N. Korea, a country that does not have the agricultural advantages that a Caribbean island does. The government does not leave the people to absolute subsistence though and reinforces diversified agriculture with a well-developed social support system for the people.

quote:

---

Today, four fifths of Cuban agriculture is organic and they are working towards 100 per cent. Vacant lots, lawns and yards now grow food so today, 80 per cent of leafy (non-grain) vegetables are grown and consumed within cities and towns

---

David Suzuki

[ 23 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

And you know that I am not talking about a formalized blueprint for society. I want the "world" to die for heavans sake. What I want is a return to context in the most egalitarian ways possible. And you are quite mistaken to assume that because people in africa havn't read bakunin means that no local collectivised, egalitarian existance can happen. Bakunin and the 19th century anarchists are by no means the begining of what is quite frankly a human tendency that is ever timeless. Read David Graeber for example. He'll point to records of anarchist ideas existing in China during the 'warring states era' 2000+ years ago. Anarchism is not the same as Marxism in that sense. In fact Marx at his best is part of this greater organic tendency.

I should post a link a rather excelent reply by mr Graeber in this regard. Its at the bottom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I didn't throw any charges at you, I simply pointed out that it is not always possible to form comprehensive opinions about what is going on simply on the basis of newsbriefs, internet articles, and so on and so forth. Some pretty skeptic observers have been fooled in the past. Noam Chomsky's original views on Kampuchea is a case in point.

---

I hope you're not going to point us to one of those "Chomsky's Lies" or Chomsky is the AntiChrist web sites, Cue ?.

quote:

---

Again, many intelligent and observers never saw through the fist pounding at tables and the demands for "a second front against these bastards," to the Gulags.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Some pretty skeptic observers have been fooled in the past. Noam Chomsky's original views on Kampuchea is a case in point.

---

If you're thinking of the same Chomsky book I'm thinking of, he didn't actually put forward a lot of views. What he said was that information wasn't getting out of Cambodia, and so the very definite views being put out by the media didn't really to have any foundation, and so were presumably being disseminated more because they were useful than because they were true. He was probably right.

It turns out that Cambodia really *did* have some bad shit happening. But I'm sure the media would have been talking the same way if most of it hadn't been happening; the happenstance of being right was a pleasant bonus that they were not, in the early days, in a position to know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

If you're thinking of the same Chomsky book I'm thinking of, he didn't actually put forward a lot of views. What he said was that information wasn't getting out of Cambodia, and so the very definite views being put out by the media didn't really to have any foundation, and so were presumably being disseminated more because they were useful than because they were true. He was probably right.

---

That is a much more accurate rendition of the position he took. I think he also said more or less that it was likely the numbers were largely inflated, but did not dismiss the overall nature of the charge against the Khmer Rouge, estimating deaths in the hundres of thousands, not millions. Of course he was right the numbers were inflated but his figure (wasn't it 200,000) was also very innacurate.