I think it could be classified as such, but I think they self-describe as an indigenous movement first and foremost. I've read some things from them that essentially ask why they'd frame their struggle in terms of political philosophies that originated in Europe.
I don't know how representative that is of their mentality, though, and while I get it to an extent I think if you re-invent the wheel it's OK to call it a wheel. Although it's not really re-inventing anarchism or socialism so much as it's returning to certain pre-Columbian indigenous governing practices, some of which influenced European political ideas that developed into anarchism and socialism? But then those didn't have to exist in the face of repression by a modern capitalist state. I guess maybe it's best to understand all this context without digging in a bunch on this?
I’ve read some things from them that essentially ask why they’d frame their struggle in terms of political philosophies that originated in Europe.
Racialising materialism is ridiculous.
"Why should the Chinese frame their struggle in terms of political philosophies that originated in Europe" is an equally ridiculous thing to say. Materialism is materialism and throwing it away because a german thought of it instead of any indigenous people in mexico really grinds me the wrong way.
It's like saying gravity is European therefore we don't use the theory of gravity because we don't see why we should believe in anything a euro thought up. The origin is literally irrelevant.
By all means adjust the revolutionary theory to the local conditions, revolutionary theory must always be unique to local conditions and makes complete sense... But rejecting marx because he's european is purely racial bullshit.
I have a different perspective on this. I think it's pretty clear from Subcomandante Marcos' history that he has a good understanding of Marxism. It's not like the Zapatistas as an organization aren't built out of fundamentally Marxist notions of labor and commodity production. Given the huge amount of indigenous ways of knowing that inform the actual regular people that make the movement exist, why not frame the conversation more around the synthetic indigenous thought than strictly in terms of Western-centric European Marxists? I don't think that's the same as saying that European political philosophy is useless by merit of its whiteness.
The natural sciences are plenty eurocentric too (look up Kitasato Shibasaburo, or Bose, or many others who were denied credit for their work) but social science is even moreso
Using Marx and admitting he is a very important person is okay, and so is doing communism without reading or specifically caring about Marx, but seriously insinuating that "communism was invented by Marx" is utterly moronic regardless of who does it imo. But so is hating Marx
It reminds me a lot of permaculture and homesteading stuff, where everything you'll find on the internet is credited to 2 or 3 anglos from 1985, which it's fine that they did good stuff and ima let you finish, but also this was the de facto mode of farming for 99% of humanity before European capitalists took over--it's them that reinvented the wheel
Yeah, that part I disagree with for the reasons you stated, but it's good context to have on the movement. It's been a while since I read it, so it may have been more "this is an indigenous movement first and whatever else second," too.
Zapatistas are AES, don't @ me
I think it could be classified as such, but I think they self-describe as an indigenous movement first and foremost. I've read some things from them that essentially ask why they'd frame their struggle in terms of political philosophies that originated in Europe.
I don't know how representative that is of their mentality, though, and while I get it to an extent I think if you re-invent the wheel it's OK to call it a wheel. Although it's not really re-inventing anarchism or socialism so much as it's returning to certain pre-Columbian indigenous governing practices, some of which influenced European political ideas that developed into anarchism and socialism? But then those didn't have to exist in the face of repression by a modern capitalist state. I guess maybe it's best to understand all this context without digging in a bunch on this?
Racialising materialism is ridiculous.
"Why should the Chinese frame their struggle in terms of political philosophies that originated in Europe" is an equally ridiculous thing to say. Materialism is materialism and throwing it away because a german thought of it instead of any indigenous people in mexico really grinds me the wrong way.
It's like saying gravity is European therefore we don't use the theory of gravity because we don't see why we should believe in anything a euro thought up. The origin is literally irrelevant.
By all means adjust the revolutionary theory to the local conditions, revolutionary theory must always be unique to local conditions and makes complete sense... But rejecting marx because he's european is purely racial bullshit.
I have a different perspective on this. I think it's pretty clear from Subcomandante Marcos' history that he has a good understanding of Marxism. It's not like the Zapatistas as an organization aren't built out of fundamentally Marxist notions of labor and commodity production. Given the huge amount of indigenous ways of knowing that inform the actual regular people that make the movement exist, why not frame the conversation more around the synthetic indigenous thought than strictly in terms of Western-centric European Marxists? I don't think that's the same as saying that European political philosophy is useless by merit of its whiteness.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The natural sciences are plenty eurocentric too (look up Kitasato Shibasaburo, or Bose, or many others who were denied credit for their work) but social science is even moreso
Using Marx and admitting he is a very important person is okay, and so is doing communism without reading or specifically caring about Marx, but seriously insinuating that "communism was invented by Marx" is utterly moronic regardless of who does it imo. But so is hating Marx
It reminds me a lot of permaculture and homesteading stuff, where everything you'll find on the internet is credited to 2 or 3 anglos from 1985, which it's fine that they did good stuff and ima let you finish, but also this was the de facto mode of farming for 99% of humanity before European capitalists took over--it's them that reinvented the wheel
Yeah, that part I disagree with for the reasons you stated, but it's good context to have on the movement. It's been a while since I read it, so it may have been more "this is an indigenous movement first and whatever else second," too.