EZLN, the favorite example of Anarchists and revisionists of an alternative to Marxism-Leninism, has now collapsed due to lack of solid theoretical fundamentals.
Marxism-Leninism is the consistent science of the liberation of the working masses, and no viable alternatives have been seen to date.
article in English https://apnews.com/article/mexico-indigenous-zapatista-rebels-violence-04006895dc4bd430b4b957d459551a12
You've hacked up the quote to show only the parts you want to show. The rest of the paragraph you quoted reads as follows:
As others in this thread have been saying.... They're restructuring to address the situation with the cartels. We'll have to see what that looks like, and if it will work. But it's dishonest to characterize this as a collapse, as though they're dissolving these political organs, and nothing else. Which they're clearly saying isn't the case.
I've "hacked up" the quote to show the relevant parts of what actually happened in tangible terms. They're dissolving because they tried to create autonomy within the context of an oppressive capitalist state, and that was never going to be sustainable. You can keep pretending this isn't a collapse, but at that point you're the one being intellectually dishonest and avoiding admitting the actual reality of what this "restructuring" means.
I'm going to predict that it will involve some hierarchy and authority, inevitably.
And I'm sure it will. But it feels super weird to me that this is being used to dunk on anarchists.
The Zapatistas suffer from a problem of ideological eclecticism. There are MLs, Maoists, Anarchists, liberals, and indigenous nationalists all tied up in that movement, and it can't be easily pinned down.
I wish I could find it, but I once saw an interview with Subcomandante Marcos where the interviewer asks him about international support, and he gives a somewhat exasperated sigh and a knowing look to the camera and says "yes, from the Anarchists".
There's a clear feeling from the Zapatistas, that while they're grateful for the support from western anarchists, they're also frustrated by this simplification of who and what they are by westerners.
So it just feels gross and weird to me, that one group of western leftists is using the very real, existential, struggle of a revolutionary movement (no matter how flawed), as an excuse to dunk on another group of western leftists.
Idk, maybe log off, actually
If you see me pointing out that lack of a solid foundation leads to socialist projects dissolving as a dunk on anarchists, then that kind of says it all.
I don't see any dunking on anarchists. I see people celebrating progress.
From the OP:
From another comment:
There's clearly a dishonest interpretation of what's going on, with a revolutionary movement in the global south, being used by western leftists to dunk on other western leftists.
Dunking on? Or exulting in being proven right?
I don't personally buy this false equivalence that there are two western leftist groups engaged in a zero-sum game of one-upmanship. I see this as yet another demonstration of the futility of western anarchist cult-like thought and therefore progress being made. There are very real contradictions being resolved for those who want to see them.
The western anarchists I know in real life have moved from backing the Nazis in Ukraine to demanding condemnation of Hamas, to today whingeing about ML's because of this story. We are not the same. But I guess they're no true anarcho-Scots.
It appears you don’t understand that the Zapatistas are not in fact anarchists.
It appears then you think everyone in this thread is going off half cocked.
Have you noticed that this part of the thread has become invisible if you open the main thread?
they use some anarchist method, of which have collapsed
you're on lemmygrad, we are a sectarian instance, we are Marxist Leninists
why wouldn't we not criticize anarchism?