If AMLO decided that the Zapatistas existing was a threat to Mexican Capital he could crush them in one day. They are allowed to exist, they're not "liberated".
I mean yeah. We are powerless. They could kill every single one of us tonight and it wouldn't even make the news. I would never say we were successful at liberating literally anyone.
I suppose part of my point is that we exist in a sort of equilibrium, where the state and its capitalist analogs do not simply smother us- out of a combination of a) not recognizing us as a threat, and b) not being willing to casually slaughter its own citizens. And there are both ideological and material components of both a and b.
This might sound liberal, but we have an ability to build things up from the individual and small-collective level, and our personal choices can point in a revolutionary direction. We are stuck in hegemonic liberalism (which is not going to change any time soon), and as such our survival is largely connected to staying in the good graces of liberals, of maintaining a position such that in a cost-benefit analysis, it wouldn't make sense to kill us off.
We can make noise about what foreign countries are "advancing socialism" all we like, and it's not going to do anything more than make the target on us less blurry. We can form unions and party structures (which are good, although capitalist institutions in this country have 80+ years of success in getting the better of them), and potentially accrue big victories but also become a choicier target to crack down on. We can go full insurrectionary and get totally merked. Or, we can build anti-capitalist ways of living in ways that are not ostentatious, but directly secure most of the means of production of decent lives organically, and in a way that will allow us to resist climate change, attract people, and maybe even start a PPW from.
I am sympathetic to all of these but I favor the latter.
Vietnam isn't inside US territory, it's across an ocean lol, not quite the same thing as a region inside Mexico.
Vietnam was the underdog but they still had at least some form of weaponry and an actual army (as well as aid from USSR and China), Zapatistas have a population of 360K people and no real military equipment.
This is true but it has nothing to do with the Zapatistas. Cartels are the only force that breaks that monopoly on violence. Honestly a cartel could probably eradicate the EZLN
Al Qaeda literally had weapons and money from the CIA laying around when they became "enemies" of the US, and continued to receive funding from Saudi billionaires with seemingly limitless wealth. Also, they are willing to kill 100 innocents to kill one infidel. Zapatistas have ancient bolt-action rifles and make their money selling $60 bags of coffee to white liberals. They are allowed to exist by the Mexican state.
The zapatistas are to be admired yes, but have they actually expanded out of Chiapas? Not denying that they are doing very important things, but they can't even get out of a single province. Now imagine running the biggest country in the world
Iran literally executes people in public daily. When western backed protestors were rioting, they used live rounds on them. How in the fuck is Iran not "authoritarian" lol
deleted by creator
If AMLO decided that the Zapatistas existing was a threat to Mexican Capital he could crush them in one day. They are allowed to exist, they're not "liberated".
You could say that about a lot of communists in the West too.
Each of us are "allowed to exist", our organizations are "allowed to exist".
I mean yeah. We are powerless. They could kill every single one of us tonight and it wouldn't even make the news. I would never say we were successful at liberating literally anyone.
I suppose part of my point is that we exist in a sort of equilibrium, where the state and its capitalist analogs do not simply smother us- out of a combination of a) not recognizing us as a threat, and b) not being willing to casually slaughter its own citizens. And there are both ideological and material components of both a and b.
This might sound liberal, but we have an ability to build things up from the individual and small-collective level, and our personal choices can point in a revolutionary direction. We are stuck in hegemonic liberalism (which is not going to change any time soon), and as such our survival is largely connected to staying in the good graces of liberals, of maintaining a position such that in a cost-benefit analysis, it wouldn't make sense to kill us off.
We can make noise about what foreign countries are "advancing socialism" all we like, and it's not going to do anything more than make the target on us less blurry. We can form unions and party structures (which are good, although capitalist institutions in this country have 80+ years of success in getting the better of them), and potentially accrue big victories but also become a choicier target to crack down on. We can go full insurrectionary and get totally merked. Or, we can build anti-capitalist ways of living in ways that are not ostentatious, but directly secure most of the means of production of decent lives organically, and in a way that will allow us to resist climate change, attract people, and maybe even start a PPW from.
I am sympathetic to all of these but I favor the latter.
deleted by creator
Mexico has planes with bombs, they could obliterate the Zapatistas
deleted by creator
Vietnam isn't inside US territory, it's across an ocean lol, not quite the same thing as a region inside Mexico.
Vietnam was the underdog but they still had at least some form of weaponry and an actual army (as well as aid from USSR and China), Zapatistas have a population of 360K people and no real military equipment.
deleted by creator
This is true but it has nothing to do with the Zapatistas. Cartels are the only force that breaks that monopoly on violence. Honestly a cartel could probably eradicate the EZLN
deleted by creator
Lol vietnam was a country of dozens of millions of people being armed and funded by a global superpower.
deleted by creator
Al Qaeda literally had weapons and money from the CIA laying around when they became "enemies" of the US, and continued to receive funding from Saudi billionaires with seemingly limitless wealth. Also, they are willing to kill 100 innocents to kill one infidel. Zapatistas have ancient bolt-action rifles and make their money selling $60 bags of coffee to white liberals. They are allowed to exist by the Mexican state.
deleted by creator
The zapatistas are to be admired yes, but have they actually expanded out of Chiapas? Not denying that they are doing very important things, but they can't even get out of a single province. Now imagine running the biggest country in the world
deleted by creator
Are these huge capitalist countries under attack by sanctions and sabatoeurs?
deleted by creator
Iran literally executes people in public daily. When western backed protestors were rioting, they used live rounds on them. How in the fuck is Iran not "authoritarian" lol
deleted by creator
At this point you're just being obtuse
deleted by creator
ahh yes because communist/socialist countries were famously hindered, whats a venezuela?
let's get this back on topic, a Venezuela is when the government does things
& the more things it does, the more Venez, well, a governmental entity is
deleted by creator
you started talking about Iran for some reason while the discussion was on socialist countries
deleted by creator