• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ezln

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Because of the lack of interest in this topic, I will elaborate more about my position.

The Zapatistas are anarchists without being anarchists.

One of the slogans of the zapistas are, "For everyone, everything. For us, nothing."

In addition to this, they are in adamant opposition to NAFTA.

I feel like the Zapatista struggle is an example of how anarchism can work in a society. Even though, it's not totally alligned with the anarchist political theory (for example they ban alcohol and drugs), I believe that anarchism would manifest itself differently in different cultures.
 

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Eh, I'm not overly impressed. Its great that they decided to drop violence (only after getting their asses kicked but better late than never I suppose) but their ideology doesn't appeal to me. Anti-globalization movements typically don't sit well with me as they most often focus on the losses of a section of society and completely ignore the gains made by everyone in the society (such as the Zapatista complaint about cheap US agricultural products which have driven some farmers out of business but have resulted in lower food prices for anyone, its almost like saying its doesn't matter if people are malnourished or starve as long as traditional farmers keep being economically viable). Also they're somewhat socially conservative having banned alcohol and drugs (though at least they don't seem to have particularly harsh punishment for defying that law).

As anarcho-syndicalist groups go they're alright (mainly because of the non-violence), but I'm still not going to adopt their ideology.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
As anarcho-syndicalist groups go they're alright
To be technical, they wouldn't ever be considered syndicalist because there's no emphasis on trade unionism in their zapatista villages.

BTW the zapatista rising was considered an embarrassment for the government of mexico, so I wouldn't say that the EZLN got their "asses kicked".

In addition, I think if you want to understand why they oppose neo-liberalism and globalization, it's a good idea to place them in the context of their environment. I suggest you watch "A Place Called Chiapas". It's free on youtube, so what do you have to lose? It's slanted towards the EZLN but its the best documentary out there about them and their struggle.

The biggest beef I have with the EZLN is that they failed to protect their own supporters in the North when they were getting killed by the ironically called 'Peace and justice' paramilitary. However, this is probably not their fault and I'm probably just a naive idealist.
 
Last edited:

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
BTW the zapatista rising was considered an embarrassment for the government of mexico, so I wouldn't say that the EZLN got their "asses kicked".
Their uprising got its butt kicked the minute Mexican Army troops entered the area the only "win" they can claim is the escape of the leaders and thus their movement didn't die right then. It was embarrassing for the Mexican government to see the leaders get away but the retreat was still the result of an ass kicking.

In addition, I think if you want to understand why they oppose neo-liberalism and globalization, it's a good idea to place them in the context of their environment. I suggest you watch "A Place Called Chiapas". It's free on youtube, so what do you have to lose? It's slanted towards the EZLN but its the best documentary out there about them and their struggle.
Ah yes I can look at a slanted documentary determined to show every single person claiming loss off globalization as if I had never seen one before. But no one produces touching documentary about how cheap food then helps poor families avoid starvation. Because its a lot hard to show this in a compelling way on film, especially when the poor people themselves often don't recognize what has happened or why it happened.

The problem with the anti-globalization view is that it is inherently parochial and focuses on a concentrated set of losses rather than the diffuse gains. So crying locals living in conditions which apparently weren't even good before globalization isn't going to change my mind (and again, I've seen stuff like it before).

The biggest beef I have with the EZLN is that they failed to protect their own supporters in the North when they were getting killed by the ironically called 'Peace and justice' paramilitary. However, this is probably not their fault and I'm probably just a naive idealist.
Their base of support is Chiapas I wouldn't be surprised if they simply didn't have the ability to protect people outside that area.
 
Top Bottom