To be technical, they wouldn't ever be considered syndicalist because there's no emphasis on trade unionism in their zapatista villages.As anarcho-syndicalist groups go they're alright
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.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".
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.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.
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.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.