If the US really gave a shit about getting rid of the Zapatistas, they'd have done so. They only have like 7,000 people in poorly armed militias, and their combined population isn't even half a million. What they've done is genuinely amazing, but their situation is not at all comparable to Cuba. They're just a handful of people living in small villages in a jungle of little geopolitical importance.
link the thread? idk what you're referring to specifically.
and yeah, you can critique imperialist attitudes, but the vast majority of the time, I see that just thrown out as an excuse to not have a discussion about the faults of ML countries. like, we should be able to have a discussion about the CCP's not great attitudes towards lgbtq people, or the working conditions of the working class in Vietnam, without that conversation being immediately shut down by someone throwing out bad faith accusations of justifying imperialism. one can point out the poor treatment of certain people in certain places without wanting to invade or sanction that place.
if we refuse to look at why or how things are bad in socialist projects across the world, we will never learn what went wrong to get to that point, and how we can address it in a future effort.
my browser crashed while I was like halfway through a thorough response. plz kill me.
my main points were it always feels like any source not directly funded by the Chinese government is dismissed as propaganda, and that's only if I'm not directly insulted for even insinuating a slight flaw with some cis dudes favorite country. and yeah, I don't recall seeing any anarchists cheering on the coup in Bolivia. the difference is anarchists don't really give a shit who is doing the oppressing, just that oppression is bad, and they don't really give a shit if the US likes or doesn't like that place. I don't see many anarchists talking favorably about Israel, or Saudi Arabia, or england, for example. and they're all friends with america. it just so happens some of the countries we don't like also don't get along with america, but that doesn't mean they deserve our support. like, I remember some dude baked flag cookies of socialist countries, plus modern day russia. when I asked why, they said its bc critical support for Russia bc they're enemies of the US. but russia still sucks, even if theyre not friends with america.
oh yeah, the link too. think you sent the wrong one. i dont see anything homophobic in that post.
on the last thing, I didn't see that, but of course I don't condone anyone using racist or homophobic attacks against political rivals.
but since I've got ADHD my replies are always hard to follow, just know I'm reading your reply point by point, and will be responding point by point. also, gonna post now and just keep on editing for a bit in case Firefox decides to suck again.
i dont think going off of just, some random guy who happens to live in x country is a good way to get information. like, remember all the twitter bots praising the bolivian coup from bolivia, or the dumbass rich as hell former landlords from cuba who now own mansions telling everyone how awful it is, or even dumbass broke republicans constantly saying how great america is now that trump became president, despite america being even worse than it was before. looking up just the publicly available information say on the median wages and working hours in vietnam, or chinas laws regarding lgbtq people are objective measures nobody can spin, and that if properly checked, cant be falsified.
idk what that paragraph has to do with my point. when im talking about oppressed peoples, im not talking about chuds in cuba getting kicked out. im talking about workers being given very little, or trans people not having equal protection under the law, or racist institutions disproportionately enforcing the laws. those are serious issues happening now in various socialist projects across the world, not a hypothetical future where we deport some chuds.
my main point with that is just because a country is a target of US empire building doesnt mean we need to take their side. the US is bad, but that doesnt mean we need to pick a side when they decide some other imperialist behemoth is their new enemy.
on the comment, they seemed to be saying they werent the "pooh bear bad" type rather than actually saying "pooh bear bad" and ive used sucking dick as a way to convey that point, and i dont think its inherently homophobic or transphobic or anything. any gender can have a dick, and any gender can suck a dick. thats my hot take.
ok, done for now lol
nvm. someone found the cookie post. seems like their take on russia was actually pretty popular. the "deleted by creator" is me, saying what youd expect. https://hexbear.net/post/68087
last edit: ive been doing a set of situp and pushups after every comment or report or action i take on here lately. even if im terminally online, at least ill be in shape doing it.
my general rule of thumb is that if the US claims a country is doing some horrible thing, its probably like 10% true. enough there that they can present some real evidence, and then extrapolate just outright fabrications from there on. like, I have no doubt based on what I've seen China treats the Uyghurs like shit, but whenever I see a circular citation in an article I know they've got nothing to add but speculation at best and misinformation at worst. and like yeah, sadam wasn't a great dude, but he didn't have fucking nukes. there's usually a tiny kernel of truth somewhere, but not usually enough to ever get the american public to feel justified with any sort of intervention.
we're spefically talking about whether western anarchists should be critiquing socialist countries. whether or not the US supports or opposes that country doesn't ever factor into my decision. its why rojava can still be good, and Israel can still be bad. I do not give a shit about the opinions of the US government one way or another. I'm always down for some critical support, but I'm not gonna be more or less inclined to offer that support if theyre the enemy of the US government, especially if theyre a large country like russia or China. like, theyre gonna be fine. they don't need your support.
But the case of the Zapatistas is legitimately different compared to Cuba and it is very relevant because the model the Zapatistas followed would never be applicable for them.
Because they'd be squashed immediately, and a large and more urban society with much more internal homogeneity than the Zapatistas wouldn't be able to follow the same kind of strategy as the Zapatistas either way, since with the Zapatistas the main driving force wasn't class conflict between the same society, it was an oppressor external to the society (Mexico) which means they didn't have to deal with the same degree of internal issues. The thing is, Mexico doesn't care nearly as much for the Zapatistas as the US did for Cuba. The only reasons Cuba survived were because of their close alliance with the USSR which was guarding them and their robust militarization. Cuba was a place of great geopolitical importance during the Cold War, because not only was it a huge source of profit for Casinos and hotels, but also it was a key area which the USSR could utilize against the US, unlike the Chiapas which is just some place in the jungle. Beyond the many assassination attempts against leaders, embargos and and attempts at destabilization, the US actually did literally invade Cuba post revolution, which built up to a huge missile crisis. Thing is, the Zapatistas don't really care for industrialization or any of that stuff, and they are not a real geopolitical threat for anyone. Mexico is content with mostly just leaving them be as an autonomous area (tensions aside). That is not consistent with the situation in Cuba.
I'm being sincere when I say this, but you keep sort of dismissing the zapatistas as basically "irrelevant jungle people" and that feels like you're kinda teetering on racism. I don't think its intentional or anything, but I'd encourage you to just try and do better with it going forward.
as for your main point, I don't really see the proof it couldn't work. I think its fair to say its less likely, but I still think its unfair to say it wasn't even possible.
but you keep sort of dismissing the zapatistas as basically “irrelevant jungle people” and that feels like you’re kinda teetering on racism
That's what you are imagining. The Chiapas is simply not an interesting place geopolitically. It has nothing to do with racism, or with the Zapatistas in particular. They're just not populous enough or in a critical enough area for them to be as big a threat as Cuba was.
as for your main point, I don’t really see the proof it couldn’t work
Why do you think it WOULD work? Has it ever worked that way? You can just look at the conflicts between the Zapatistas and the Mexican government and compare them to the revolution in Cuba and the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the massive internal conflicts Cuba had to straighten out, as well as the class nature of the society in the Chiapas compared to that in Cuba during the time of the revolution. The Zapatistas don't have a lot of infrastructure (that's kind of the point behind their rebellion, they do not WANT a lot of industrial development because it goes contrary to their way of life), they have little modern equipment, little organization in their military, and they just rely on social cohesion and Mexico not being interested enough in a large organized invasion. Cuba can't rely on any of these things.
I didn't call you racist, I'm just saying watch it bc it kinda sounds a little racist. I'd encourage you to actually do this instead of dismissing it as an unfounded concern. can't be a good leftist if youre comfortable using racially charged language.
Cuba's got a pretty unified culture, and the US would not have cared about them as much during the Cold War if they hadn't viewed them as a soviet puppet state or an extension of capital C "Communism."
can’t be a good leftist if youre comfortable using racially charged language.
You brought up the racially charged language, not me, I never called them "irrelevant jungle people".
Cuba’s got a pretty unified culture
Not at all. Cuba was a settler state, just like the US was. Cuba was also ruled by a dictatorship which held a lot of sway with the bourgeoisie of the country as well as many people from other classes, and soft slavery was widespread.
the US would not have cared about them as much during the Cold War if they hadn’t viewed them as a soviet puppet state
They were a threat by default by virtue of deposing a US puppet dictator, moving away from the US while holding such an important geopolitical location (thus making them susceptible to influence by the USSR EVEN IF they didn't move towards them at first, which would be silly anyways because then they wouldn't be able to properly trade with anyone), and kicking out American businesses. They wouldn't be seen as a threat if they aligned themselves to the US but there wouldn't really be a point in that, would it?
yeah, I'm not gonna engage with someone who can't do basic introspection about just watching their language to make sure theyre not being racist. that's a vaush type beat I don't fuck with.
? You imagined I was being racist or using racist language because I talked about the Chiapas being in the jungle. You said I was dismissing them as "irrelevant jungle people" because it somehow seemed to you like that's what I was doing because you read my post in a hurry or something. The place the Zapatistas live in is literally called the Lacandon jungle. It's about as impossible to talk about the geopolitics of the place they live in without bringing up the massive jungle as it is to talk about Cuba without bringing up it being an island. The point is that it's a 2 million hectare jungle, a part of which is completely untouched, there are no military bases, there is not much of interest there for Mexico.
your language seemed racially charged. I suggested you just tone that done going forward, you responded with several walls of text justifying that racially charged language. this is on you buddy.
What was the racially charged language beyond what you imagined? You fake quoted something I didn't say. Like, just quote the part of my post that was racially charged. Is "jungle" racially charged?
They’re just a handful of people living in small villages in a jungle of little geopolitical importance.
unlike the Chiapas which is just some place in the jungle.
you keep going back to this, and it sounds like it could very easily turn into racism. I'm asking you just watch that it doesn't. idk why you're freaking out over the insinuation that you should be careful not to be racist.
Because when you're insinuating that what someone is saying "can turn" into racism or that it is "racially charged" when it clearly isn't and fake quoting stuff, you're just casting suspicion to delegitimize what they're saying for no good reason. The Chiapas is literally some place in the jungle (well not the whole thing, but the area in which they live very much is), and they do live in small villages in the Lacandon jungle. This is important not because it somehow says something about them, but because it being a jungle with no infrastructure, it is of little concern to Mexico. Mexico actually gave the ownership of a big chunk of the jungle to the native Lacandon people years before the Zapatista uprising.
my issue is not you pointing out that theyre located in a jungle, but that you seem to not be a super big fan of an indigenous movement that refuses to industrialize, and I'm asking you hey, make sure you don't actually say out loud that their way of living is inferior. I'm not saying you do or don't think that, I'm just asking you not to.
but that you seem to not be a super big fan of an indigenous movement that refuses to industrialize
This is also something that's not in my posts, I said from the very start what they did is genuinely incredible, the fact that they refuse to industrialize is not to cast shade on them, it is to point out a significant way in which they are different from Cuba.
ok, great, and I'm asking you to just watch your language is all. this sites supposed to be a safe space for all comrades, and just double checking your comment doesn't have any micro aggression type vibe to it is good practice.
a narrow strait between them and Florida, plus the US seems to have lost interest in them since the San Andres accords, not to say that they haven't suffered
that's literally the zapatistas.
deleted by creator
maybe, but that's not proof that they couldn't. plus, they absolutely have been through hell and back.
deleted by creator
If the US really gave a shit about getting rid of the Zapatistas, they'd have done so. They only have like 7,000 people in poorly armed militias, and their combined population isn't even half a million. What they've done is genuinely amazing, but their situation is not at all comparable to Cuba. They're just a handful of people living in small villages in a jungle of little geopolitical importance.
deleted by creator
they're still a stateless society, even if they don't self identify as anarchist. I never called the zapatistas anarchists, just stateless socialism.
deleted by creator
it seemed more to ask people to stop purity testing them. doesn't sound like they give a shit if someone criticizes China or Cuba or something.
deleted by creator
yeah you're right, when I say China should legalize gay marriage and be less shit to trans people, I'm actually doing colonialism.
deleted by creator
link the thread? idk what you're referring to specifically.
and yeah, you can critique imperialist attitudes, but the vast majority of the time, I see that just thrown out as an excuse to not have a discussion about the faults of ML countries. like, we should be able to have a discussion about the CCP's not great attitudes towards lgbtq people, or the working conditions of the working class in Vietnam, without that conversation being immediately shut down by someone throwing out bad faith accusations of justifying imperialism. one can point out the poor treatment of certain people in certain places without wanting to invade or sanction that place.
if we refuse to look at why or how things are bad in socialist projects across the world, we will never learn what went wrong to get to that point, and how we can address it in a future effort.
deleted by creator
my browser crashed while I was like halfway through a thorough response. plz kill me.
my main points were it always feels like any source not directly funded by the Chinese government is dismissed as propaganda, and that's only if I'm not directly insulted for even insinuating a slight flaw with some cis dudes favorite country. and yeah, I don't recall seeing any anarchists cheering on the coup in Bolivia. the difference is anarchists don't really give a shit who is doing the oppressing, just that oppression is bad, and they don't really give a shit if the US likes or doesn't like that place. I don't see many anarchists talking favorably about Israel, or Saudi Arabia, or england, for example. and they're all friends with america. it just so happens some of the countries we don't like also don't get along with america, but that doesn't mean they deserve our support. like, I remember some dude baked flag cookies of socialist countries, plus modern day russia. when I asked why, they said its bc critical support for Russia bc they're enemies of the US. but russia still sucks, even if theyre not friends with america.
oh yeah, the link too. think you sent the wrong one. i dont see anything homophobic in that post.
deleted by creator
on the last thing, I didn't see that, but of course I don't condone anyone using racist or homophobic attacks against political rivals.
but since I've got ADHD my replies are always hard to follow, just know I'm reading your reply point by point, and will be responding point by point. also, gonna post now and just keep on editing for a bit in case Firefox decides to suck again.
i dont think going off of just, some random guy who happens to live in x country is a good way to get information. like, remember all the twitter bots praising the bolivian coup from bolivia, or the dumbass rich as hell former landlords from cuba who now own mansions telling everyone how awful it is, or even dumbass broke republicans constantly saying how great america is now that trump became president, despite america being even worse than it was before. looking up just the publicly available information say on the median wages and working hours in vietnam, or chinas laws regarding lgbtq people are objective measures nobody can spin, and that if properly checked, cant be falsified.
idk what that paragraph has to do with my point. when im talking about oppressed peoples, im not talking about chuds in cuba getting kicked out. im talking about workers being given very little, or trans people not having equal protection under the law, or racist institutions disproportionately enforcing the laws. those are serious issues happening now in various socialist projects across the world, not a hypothetical future where we deport some chuds.
my main point with that is just because a country is a target of US empire building doesnt mean we need to take their side. the US is bad, but that doesnt mean we need to pick a side when they decide some other imperialist behemoth is their new enemy.
on the comment, they seemed to be saying they werent the "pooh bear bad" type rather than actually saying "pooh bear bad" and ive used sucking dick as a way to convey that point, and i dont think its inherently homophobic or transphobic or anything. any gender can have a dick, and any gender can suck a dick. thats my hot take.
ok, done for now lol
nvm. someone found the cookie post. seems like their take on russia was actually pretty popular. the "deleted by creator" is me, saying what youd expect. https://hexbear.net/post/68087
last edit: ive been doing a set of situp and pushups after every comment or report or action i take on here lately. even if im terminally online, at least ill be in shape doing it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
my general rule of thumb is that if the US claims a country is doing some horrible thing, its probably like 10% true. enough there that they can present some real evidence, and then extrapolate just outright fabrications from there on. like, I have no doubt based on what I've seen China treats the Uyghurs like shit, but whenever I see a circular citation in an article I know they've got nothing to add but speculation at best and misinformation at worst. and like yeah, sadam wasn't a great dude, but he didn't have fucking nukes. there's usually a tiny kernel of truth somewhere, but not usually enough to ever get the american public to feel justified with any sort of intervention.
we're spefically talking about whether western anarchists should be critiquing socialist countries. whether or not the US supports or opposes that country doesn't ever factor into my decision. its why rojava can still be good, and Israel can still be bad. I do not give a shit about the opinions of the US government one way or another. I'm always down for some critical support, but I'm not gonna be more or less inclined to offer that support if theyre the enemy of the US government, especially if theyre a large country like russia or China. like, theyre gonna be fine. they don't need your support.
and no yeah you're right that guy sucks.
https://hexbear.net/post/68087
holy shit how'd you find that??
Searched chapo for "cookie" and restricted the search to posts.
o7
deleted by creator
they have an entire country between them and the great satan
Cuba's got an ocean
Navies and air force don't exist.
air forces notoriously couldn't possibly fly over the zapatistas
Are you saying the US would invade Mexico just to fuck with the Zapatistas for some reason?
no I'm saying its silly to play a game of "which leftist place I'll never go to is having a harder time surviving"
But the case of the Zapatistas is legitimately different compared to Cuba and it is very relevant because the model the Zapatistas followed would never be applicable for them.
why wouldn't it be applicable?
Because they'd be squashed immediately, and a large and more urban society with much more internal homogeneity than the Zapatistas wouldn't be able to follow the same kind of strategy as the Zapatistas either way, since with the Zapatistas the main driving force wasn't class conflict between the same society, it was an oppressor external to the society (Mexico) which means they didn't have to deal with the same degree of internal issues. The thing is, Mexico doesn't care nearly as much for the Zapatistas as the US did for Cuba. The only reasons Cuba survived were because of their close alliance with the USSR which was guarding them and their robust militarization. Cuba was a place of great geopolitical importance during the Cold War, because not only was it a huge source of profit for Casinos and hotels, but also it was a key area which the USSR could utilize against the US, unlike the Chiapas which is just some place in the jungle. Beyond the many assassination attempts against leaders, embargos and and attempts at destabilization, the US actually did literally invade Cuba post revolution, which built up to a huge missile crisis. Thing is, the Zapatistas don't really care for industrialization or any of that stuff, and they are not a real geopolitical threat for anyone. Mexico is content with mostly just leaving them be as an autonomous area (tensions aside). That is not consistent with the situation in Cuba.
I'm being sincere when I say this, but you keep sort of dismissing the zapatistas as basically "irrelevant jungle people" and that feels like you're kinda teetering on racism. I don't think its intentional or anything, but I'd encourage you to just try and do better with it going forward.
as for your main point, I don't really see the proof it couldn't work. I think its fair to say its less likely, but I still think its unfair to say it wasn't even possible.
That's what you are imagining. The Chiapas is simply not an interesting place geopolitically. It has nothing to do with racism, or with the Zapatistas in particular. They're just not populous enough or in a critical enough area for them to be as big a threat as Cuba was.
Why do you think it WOULD work? Has it ever worked that way? You can just look at the conflicts between the Zapatistas and the Mexican government and compare them to the revolution in Cuba and the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the massive internal conflicts Cuba had to straighten out, as well as the class nature of the society in the Chiapas compared to that in Cuba during the time of the revolution. The Zapatistas don't have a lot of infrastructure (that's kind of the point behind their rebellion, they do not WANT a lot of industrial development because it goes contrary to their way of life), they have little modern equipment, little organization in their military, and they just rely on social cohesion and Mexico not being interested enough in a large organized invasion. Cuba can't rely on any of these things.
I didn't call you racist, I'm just saying watch it bc it kinda sounds a little racist. I'd encourage you to actually do this instead of dismissing it as an unfounded concern. can't be a good leftist if youre comfortable using racially charged language.
Cuba's got a pretty unified culture, and the US would not have cared about them as much during the Cold War if they hadn't viewed them as a soviet puppet state or an extension of capital C "Communism."
You brought up the racially charged language, not me, I never called them "irrelevant jungle people".
Not at all. Cuba was a settler state, just like the US was. Cuba was also ruled by a dictatorship which held a lot of sway with the bourgeoisie of the country as well as many people from other classes, and soft slavery was widespread.
They were a threat by default by virtue of deposing a US puppet dictator, moving away from the US while holding such an important geopolitical location (thus making them susceptible to influence by the USSR EVEN IF they didn't move towards them at first, which would be silly anyways because then they wouldn't be able to properly trade with anyone), and kicking out American businesses. They wouldn't be seen as a threat if they aligned themselves to the US but there wouldn't really be a point in that, would it?
yeah, I'm not gonna engage with someone who can't do basic introspection about just watching their language to make sure theyre not being racist. that's a vaush type beat I don't fuck with.
? You imagined I was being racist or using racist language because I talked about the Chiapas being in the jungle. You said I was dismissing them as "irrelevant jungle people" because it somehow seemed to you like that's what I was doing because you read my post in a hurry or something. The place the Zapatistas live in is literally called the Lacandon jungle. It's about as impossible to talk about the geopolitics of the place they live in without bringing up the massive jungle as it is to talk about Cuba without bringing up it being an island. The point is that it's a 2 million hectare jungle, a part of which is completely untouched, there are no military bases, there is not much of interest there for Mexico.
your language seemed racially charged. I suggested you just tone that done going forward, you responded with several walls of text justifying that racially charged language. this is on you buddy.
What was the racially charged language beyond what you imagined? You fake quoted something I didn't say. Like, just quote the part of my post that was racially charged. Is "jungle" racially charged?
you keep going back to this, and it sounds like it could very easily turn into racism. I'm asking you just watch that it doesn't. idk why you're freaking out over the insinuation that you should be careful not to be racist.
Because when you're insinuating that what someone is saying "can turn" into racism or that it is "racially charged" when it clearly isn't and fake quoting stuff, you're just casting suspicion to delegitimize what they're saying for no good reason. The Chiapas is literally some place in the jungle (well not the whole thing, but the area in which they live very much is), and they do live in small villages in the Lacandon jungle. This is important not because it somehow says something about them, but because it being a jungle with no infrastructure, it is of little concern to Mexico. Mexico actually gave the ownership of a big chunk of the jungle to the native Lacandon people years before the Zapatista uprising.
my issue is not you pointing out that theyre located in a jungle, but that you seem to not be a super big fan of an indigenous movement that refuses to industrialize, and I'm asking you hey, make sure you don't actually say out loud that their way of living is inferior. I'm not saying you do or don't think that, I'm just asking you not to.
This is also something that's not in my posts, I said from the very start what they did is genuinely incredible, the fact that they refuse to industrialize is not to cast shade on them, it is to point out a significant way in which they are different from Cuba.
ok, great, and I'm asking you to just watch your language is all. this sites supposed to be a safe space for all comrades, and just double checking your comment doesn't have any micro aggression type vibe to it is good practice.
Alright, that's fine, I just don't think it was warranted and I saw it as an attempt to delegitimize what I said.
a narrow strait between them and Florida, plus the US seems to have lost interest in them since the San Andres accords, not to say that they haven't suffered
deleted by creator