I have not ever been there. However, many people I know have been there.
In this particular case it seems to have been very useful. On the ground there, the people believe that they are better off because of the whole thing. The organization is real, they do function in a huge number of cities as the defacto government. They can mobilize their base rapidly.
I doubt that they can overthrow the government, but they do seem to have been able to at least hold them to a draw. If other groups in Mexico did the same thing that coalition might be able to project some power outward.
My guess is that this is not a bad structure, but that it would only be useful in similar sorts of situations.
Steve
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 1:21 PM Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: Zapatista - looks like the last part of it.
> Steven Gotzler wrote:
>
>>The statement seems to be too long for the lbo list, its wordy as hell.
>>Here is a link to the full thing and the last portion of it.
>
> I approved it already! I let things like this through, because they're
> important documents of broad interest.
>
> I hate to ask this, since it feels like sacrilege to me (I'm not being
> ironic with that, either, and these are really meant as questions), but
> does this statment amount to anything more than pretty words? I was really
> excited when the Zaps burst onto the scene. But almost a dozen years
> later, how much difference have they made? Is the model of a loosely
> organized group, very geographically and ethnically based, that doesn't
> aim to take state power, really as promising as it once seemed?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>