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)
