Anarchism and the Zapatistas

....(1) The rise of the EZLN out of the neo-agrarista movement in the past
few decades (in reality a whole non-ideological latice of autonomous campesino
struggles) does not necessarily reflect a direct tie to either Zapatismo or
anarchism. Yes the anarchists did have a big hand in the 19th cent. agararista
movement but their participation in the 20th is shaky at best. While a few
urban anarchists like Antonio Diaz Soto y Gama joined Zapata the majority of
Mexican anarchists actively fought against the Zapatistas. The Casa de Obrero
Mundial (an anarcho-syndicalist group) formed anti-Zapatista "red battalions"
in support of the bourgeois liberal Carrancistas.Furthermore Magon's PLM had
very little to do with the Zapatistas since they had been essentially
crushed by the US and Mexican state. Zapatismo like most agrarista ideologies
has a very narrow focus. It oriented itself to "tierra y libertad" but in
a regional context (the sugar plantations and ejidos of Morelos). Similarly
what the EZLN wants is based around specific regional conditions (but sharing
a same basic agrarista strand with the Zapatistas). I think we should be 
careful about slapping our North American anarchist label over an insurrection
which has a far more complex reality.
    (2) I would be really antsy about calling the uprising "non-authoriatarian".It is in the sense that it comes relatively organically from-below as a 
challenge to Mexican Capital and the State but organizationally the EZLN is
an authoritarian group. From talking with people supposedly tied directly to
them they sound to be organized as an army. In other words with a rigid 
chain of command with a clandestine central committee at its apex. Decision
making is semi-democratic following a maoist mass line type approach(reflecting
the Maoist roots of some of the urban types in the group). For example the
decision to push forward the uprising from April (the beginning of the rainy season) to Jan.1 had been discussed by the entire membership and had been agreed
upon despite the supposedly almighty Marcos' objections. Once again its a
complex situation for us anarchists. I personally am inspired more by the
town takeovers by autonomous campesino groups than by the EZLN (although I
find them far more sympathetic than leftist rackets like the FMLN). As far as
the EZLN is tied to its autonomous campesino roots I think we should support 
them but I think we need to have a clear analysis of who they are.
      Oh well enough late night ranting, I would just like to close by saying
I think we should support the people of Chiapas and Mexico in what ever it
takes for them to liberate themselves but I think that support should take
into account a healthy dose of two-way criticism.

