On Feb 29, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Eric wrote:
> I know we've been at this before, so it's probably not very
> productive, but oh well. You want to evaluate, eg, the Zapatistas,
> who are trying to create something more or less "new" in politics,
> but you use political criteria that are at least 100 years old? The
> Zapatistas want to NOT take state power, but you criticize them
> because of who has taken control of the Mexican state? That's doesn't
> make any fucking sense. The point of antistatism isn't to get elected
> the best possible CEO of the state. It's to practice politics that
> sidesteps the state as much as possible. Duh.
Yeah, I know all that. I even used to believe it to some degree. The point is that the results so far are sadly lacking. You can't sidestep the state. It's got an army, issues the money, and has a monopoly over the "legitimate" use of force. The Zaps have maybe changed things in a little corner of Mexico. Maybe. Meanwhile, life goes on as if they barely exist.
Doug