Subcomandante Marcos

[camus]

Have been reading up on him and waiting for a collection of his writings to be delivered by post.

 

Has anyone got any opinions?

 

I think he is a dreamer, but admire what he is doing and the way he goes about it very much.

 

on to you...

[BatChainPuller]

He rules.

 

Comandante Monte will be along shortly to deliver chapter and verse.

[camus]

He rules.

 

Comandante Monte will be along shortly to deliver chapter and verse.

 

 

I will start reading for an MA in Media studies soon, probably, and was thinking that i may write a thesis analysing his media presence and his PR strategies.

 

Monte???

[Yerma'satexan!]

I will start reading for an MA in Media studies soon, probably, and was thinking that i may write a thesis analysing his media presence and his PR strategies.

 

Monte???

 

That would rule, dead hard.

[Anubis]

I will start reading for an MA in Media studies soon, probably, and was thinking that i may write a thesis analysing his media presence and his PR strategies.

 

Monte???

 

Stu Monty.

[Dirk]

Can any of you crazy leftist fuckwits recommend any books on this Mexican lad?

[Anubis]

A selection of his work is online here...

 

Writings of Subcommander Marcos of the EZLN

[Strontium]

He's a fruitloop who should join us in the real world sometime, but for a left-wing guerrilla, he and his organisation are surprisingly nonviolent. At most I could say they were grossly irresponsible.

 

I have heard him described as the "new Che Guevara" which would appear to be a little unfair, as to my knowledge, Marcos has never summarily executed anyone, let alone children and homosexuals.

 

Whether or not a whole portion of Mexico should be hived off and permitted to be run into the ground is a moot point, but I daresay the people of that region have been treated poorly by the Mexican goverrnment and have legitimate grievances. Although if Marxism is the answer, fuck only knows what the question is.

[Anubis]

Not as good a Subcomandante Cable then, SD?

[Strontium]

Well indeed. I think you have to accept that people are always going to want to trade freely with each other (ie to have some form of capitalism) and to deny them the option to freely trade their property and labour would be immoral, so our best option is to make capitalism as fair as possible, and someone like Vince Cable would certainly give you more realistic options there.

 

As I understand, Marcos's EZLN was formed in response to NAFTA, and they are heavily critical of "globalisation" and "neo-liberalism". As usual, the left gets its criticism woefully wrong: it's not globalisation and free trade that are the problem with NAFTA - it's that NAFTA isn't globalist or free trade enough.

 

NAFTA essentially protects heavily-subsidised American farmers at the expense of Mexican farmers, and it denies Mexicans the opportunity to earn a living in the United States. In a genuinely free, economically liberal, globalised market, within the framework of a genuinely free American trade agreement, Mexicans would be the beneficiaries, as they can produce crops cheaper and work for less money. And of course, that would give them the concomitant rise in living standards.

 

So instead of taking aim at free trade, the EZLN and their colleagues should be campaigning squarely for it. NAFTA isn't free trade, despite what it says on the tin.

[camus]

Well indeed. I think you have to accept that people are always going to want to trade freely with each other (ie to have some form of capitalism) and to deny them the option to freely trade their property and labour would be immoral, so our best option is to make capitalism as fair as possible, and someone like Vince Cable would certainly give you more realistic options there.

 

As I understand, Marcos's EZLN was formed in response to NAFTA, and they are heavily critical of "globalisation" and "neo-liberalism". As usual, the left gets its criticism woefully wrong: it's not globalisation and free trade that are the problem with NAFTA - it's that NAFTA isn't globalist or free trade enough.

NAFTA essentially protects heavily-subsidised American farmers at the expense of Mexican farmers, and it denies Mexicans the opportunity to earn a living in the United States. In a genuinely free, economically liberal, globalised market, within the framework of a genuinely free American trade agreement, Mexicans would be the beneficiaries, as they can produce crops cheaper and work for less money. And of course, that would give them the concomitant rise in living standards.

 

So instead of taking aim at free trade, the EZLN and their colleagues should be campaigning squarely for it. NAFTA isn't free trade, despite what it says on the tin.

 

 

SM, sorry for taking so long to reply, but i think i have to comment on a couple of your statements.

 

Point 1: If you read Marcos' writings and interviews he gave, you will see that the EZLN is not against globalisation per se. Actually he says the same things that you say yourself (in bold) above.

 

Point 2: Again, you re-iterate what Marcos himself is quoted as saying, i.e. that the EZLN is not against free trade per se but the fact that under Nafta, free trade is defined differently for US and Mexican farmers.

 

I think that you should read his actual texts and not reports about them as you seem to have formed an opinion through secondary texts who level criticism at the EZLN and the anti-globalist movement in a sort of production-line, one-size-fits-all style.

 

No disrespect meant, just trying to revive a debate i find very interesting.

[BatChainPuller]

I will start reading for an MA in Media studies soon, probably, and was thinking that i may write a thesis analysing his media presence and his PR strategies.

 

Monte???

 

Stu Monty - keen disciple of the Sup.

 

A few links to articles by/ about Marcos here:

 

Subcomandante Marcos: This is What Will Do and How We Shall Do It

 

Subcomandante Marcos: Zaps to Basques, Lighten Up!

 

 

John Ross: Commodifying the Revolution

 

Zapatista / EZLN - index of documents in English on the rebellion in Chiapas, Mexico

 

Lots of rumours about Marcos identity - believed to be a professor of philosophy. Has written novels poetry, novels etc - very much the polymath.

Our Word is Our Weapon is one of the best known political writings in English.

Good luck - fascinating stuff.

[BatChainPuller]

SM, sorry for taking so long to reply, but i think i have to comment on a couple of your statements.

 

Point 1: If you read Marcos' writings and interviews he gave, you will see that the EZLN is not against globalisation per se. Actually he says the same things that you say yourself (in bold) above.

 

Point 2: Again, you re-iterate what Marcos himself is quoted as saying, i.e. that the EZLN is not against free trade per se but the fact that under Nafta, free trade is defined differently for US and Mexican farmers.

 

I think that you should read his actual texts and not reports about them as you seem to have formed an opinion through secondary texts who level criticism at the EZLN and the anti-globalist movement in a sort of production-line, one-size-fits-all style.

 

No disrespect meant, just trying to revive a debate i find very interesting.

 

Yes you've got SD 'Liberal Boy' in one - wikipedia is generally where he cobbles his 'critiques' from.

[BatChainPuller]

Can any of you crazy leftist fuckwits recommend any books on this Mexican lad?

 

Just stay out of this Neuro Boy - we're empowering the compadre to seek out the writings of the Sup rather than spoonfeeding him.

 

Forgot this one:

 

John Ross: Zapatista Literary Life

Edited September 16, 2009 by BatChainPuller

[camus]

BCP, would you subscribe to the notion that he is a postmodern Che?

 

I think his ideas (or at least those he divulges in the name of the EZLN), are the seeds for a revival of leftist political and economic thought, which has been out of fashion for 30 years or so and could see a revival if combined with reworkings of the ideas of critical theorists such as horkheimer and adorno.

 

Thoughts?

[Strontium]

Point 1: If you read Marcos' writings and interviews he gave, you will see that the EZLN is not against globalisation per se. Actually he says the same things that you say yourself (in bold) above.

 

Point 2: Again, you re-iterate what Marcos himself is quoted as saying, i.e. that the EZLN is not against free trade per se but the fact that under Nafta, free trade is defined differently for US and Mexican farmers.

 

I think that you should read his actual texts and not reports about them as you seem to have formed an opinion through secondary texts who level criticism at the EZLN and the anti-globalist movement in a sort of production-line, one-size-fits-all style.

 

 

I would be very interested in reading these alleged texts where Marcos, the EZLN and/or their supporters express support for "fair" globalisation and free-trade, because in all the texts I read (on sites like counterpunch - unfortunately I couldn't find any on Wikipedia :whatever:) I haven't seen any distinction made. All I've seen is the usual leftist condemnation of economic liberalism, coupled with the usual leftist support for communist dictatorship in Cuba, Palestinian terrorism etc.

 

And their motto Para todos todo; para nosotros nada ("For all everything; for ourselves nothing") hardly suggests much deviation from traditional communist thought either.

[BatChainPuller]

BCP, would you subscribe to the notion that he is a postmodern Che?

 

I think his ideas (or at least those he divulges in the name of the EZLN), are the seeds for a revival of leftist political and economic thought, which has been out of fashion for 30 years or so and could see a revival if combined with reworkings of the ideas of critical theorists such as horkheimer and adorno.

 

Thoughts?

 

I don't agree with the 'postmodern Che' idea - I think the thrust of the EZLN movement has been to avoid iconisation or cults of personality by for example regularly changing spokespersons and involving as broad a base of activists as possible. As Marcos said: 'we have resigned from the role of vanguard'. There is an emerging view that he has lost the plot - this was in the recent John Ross piece I posted the link to:

'the Subcomandante's shameful performance at the Digna Rabia Fiesta is an embarrassment to long-time Zapatista supporters such as this writer who has authored four books chronicling the rebel movement. In recent years, the Sup has transformed himself into a vituperative, narcissistic charlatan who is single-handedly responsible for the depreciation of the Zapatista movement as a national and international player on the Left' - ouch! John Ross: Commodifying the Revolution

 

I totally agree that the ideas and approaches propogated by Marcos and the EZLN have been very important in revitalising the left and moving away from traditional Marxist dogma. In general I believe developments in Central and Latin America have been extremely important in producing socialist ideas that are more relevant to indigenous communities and local conditions. As such these ideas potentially have far greater applicability in other developing countries. I'm not very familiar with critical theory but it does seem to offer a lot of valuable insights - I've no doubt Marcos subscribes to these through his preoccupation with language.

 

The Cubans, Castro in particular, were amongst the first to identify and challenge neoliberalism - this has now become political orthodoxy throughout Latin America and closely associated with the resurgence of the left in the region. There is a strong fightback by the right at present, Honduras being the main example. The next couple of years will be crucial in determining whether the left can hold onto these gains and respond appropriately to the backlash.

 

p.s. in case you haven't found it this site should be of interest: The Narco News Bulletin

[Stu Monty]

Been away on holiday so I missed this badboy first time round.

 

He's an inspirational person, Camus, and the criticisms offered up by SD are, as usual when regarding left-leaning ideas, ill-informed and painted as cartoon versions of the real situation. The ELZN weren't founded as a response to NAFTA at all. Given that they declared war on the date of the treaty's signing they must have had one seriously busy morning that day. They were founded about a decade previous to that and in response to the oppression and exploitation of the indiginous Mayan population by Mexico and it's backers, the US. I've not read anyone who has so eloquently defended the weak and the trodden on that have become the fuel to be thrown on the fire over the last couple of decades. He's a brilliant speaker and the idea of fighting a media war is essential to the idea of how to achieve their aims; as his book Our word is our weapon, sets out beautifully.

 

As for terrorism, you should check out his open letter to ETA that went public a few years back. The fact that he can recognise that Palestinian people will turn to violence to overthrow oppression by the biggest military force civilisation has ever seen is not a tricky one to grasp.

 

Ya Basta!

[Stu Monty]

Marcos to Garzon and ETA - The Basque Country: Paths

[Stu Monty]

Bit of an interview with The Sup that I've just been watching, thought a few people might find it interesting. The link at the bottom is for the original Marcos thread we had a while back; I thought about merging but wasn't sure if it might read a bit oddly.

 

PDLssf72C3Y&feature=related

 

mcWolB5nIcc&feature=related

 

PMRyPnQGRks&feature=related

 

 

http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/forum/gf-general-forum/39278-marcos.html