I think that these conversations become somewhat problematic when the conversation operates on an assumption of equivalence. The Zapatista movement is a regional, indigenous movement coming out of the most impoverished region of Mexico (The land that the Mexican Revolution forgot, as a professor of mine once referred to it.) Furthermore, its a region that traditional Maoist insurgency and electoral politics have led to bloodbaths in the former and nothing in the later. Its influence should be judged in those circumstances.
I think the question should be what has the EZLN done for Chiapas.
That being said, the same thing is true for Venezuela. The movement has used the resources available to it to try to change the country and its succeeded in many regards. There is a level of political participation that was previously unimaginable. Social movements who have been previously ignored have meaningful ways to participate in political life. There is less police violence, etc.
(There are of course, very serious problems, but to expect a peaceful transition from a corrupt authoritarian market society to a peaceful social democracy is a little problematic.) Ultimately, the ability for this social change to be funded comes out of oil. The question is what is an alternative to the state in this situation? and how is Venezuela going to be able to escape the economics of the world system on its own? As a side note, I would be curious as to what kind of influence that Zapatista organizing structures had on the organizing in the Venezuelan informal sector....
Joaquin Mueras of the POUM once noted 'you cannot place the map of Russia on Spain' in response to the Spanish CP. We shouldn't expect that the revolutionary practices of LA to be able to do that either.
robert wood, an infantile disorder
> 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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>