Today Anti Imperialist Action publishes an opinion piece written by a member of the mass organisation on the Zapatista Movement. As with all opinion pieces published on our site, opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of AIA but by publishing we hope to encourages discussion and debate at the Republican Base
The Zapatista movement, predominantly based in the rural mountainous province of Chiapas, Mexico has long been described as the first post Soviet attempt at insurrection and revolution.
On 1st January, 1994 the EZLN (Emliano Zapatista Army of National Liberation) army, the disciplined army of the Zapatistas emerged from the jungles and countryside in order to rise up and halt the imposition of the NAFTA trade agreements, which were to decimate the rights of peasants throughout mexico.
Over 300 individuals were killed in the initial 12 days of fighting, with numerous reports of atrocities by the Mexican army. But who were these insurgents and were did they come from?
The uprising was spearheaded by a charismatic but masked figure known as subcommandante Marcos, who along with others, had recently launched a coup within the EZLN to stymie moves towards reformism and compromise by its leadership, and press ahead with their plans to trigger a national revolution through insurrection.
Previous to this large scale uprising of hundreds of EZLN fighters, the Zapatista movement had been growing in the mountains of chiapas, recruiting, training and organising around the rights of poor farmers and landless peasants. The organisation itself was founded, as a fighting cell, in 1983 by Marxist college students who linked in with locals in Chiapas to fight peasant exploitation, but drew its lineage and support much further back to previous armed struggle attempts which had been murderously repressed by the Mexican army.
This local lineage was strengthened by ties to refugees from Guatemala and other central american countries who found homes in Chiapas after the failures of their respective armed campaigns for liberation.
This long history and experience of Mexican and international struggle was synthesised into the EZLN over time and into a revolutionary praxis called “Neo-Zapatismo”, the praxis of the wider “Zapatistas”, a partially armed social movement that encompasses all aspects of struggle connected to the Chiapas struggle.
Named after Emiliano Zapata, a leading left wing military commander of the “Army of liberation of the south” during the Mexican revolution, from 1910 onwards, the Zapatistas see their fight and revolution as being the “unfinished business” of previous attempts at social revolution.
What can be learnt from these left wing jungle guerrillas, if anything?
In the post soviet era, the era of the pervasive attitude and ideology of “TINA-There Is No Alternative”, and the “end of history”, the EZLN offer a glimpse at what is possible, even without USSR or other revolutionary states’ backing. They offer a credible and cooperative alternative to capitalism, its corporations, its consumerism and ecological destruction.
Their continued existence 26 years on, proves that revolution is still possible and significant gains can be made if the organisations are there, and definitively-the will to act and resist is present.
The zapatistas have completely rejected electoral politics, except on one occasion when they backed an indigenous female candidate in the election for the mexican presidency. This was a temporary tactical shift and not a strategy shift away from direct action.
Direct action gets the goods?
The Zapatistas, backed up by the EZLN have always employed direct action. Their struggles around land, housing, education and access to medicine has had at its core “DYI” approach. Land has been permanently occupied and put to communal use, cooperative schools formed and local clinics established.
This approach has been successfull even against the ongoing military occupation of the most populated areas of Chiapas and their surrounding areas.
Organised destruction and occupation of military posts by hundreds of unarmed Zapatistas was the order of the day in the aftermath of the initial insurrection. While this may not be presently possible regarding the occupation of Ireland, there is most definitely inspiration to be taken.
A Mexican Eire nua and Saol Nua?
“So that the nation’s sovereignty extends not only to all the material possessions of the nation, the nation’s soil and all its resources, all wealth and all wealth-producing processes within the nation.
In other words, no private right to property is good as against the public right of the nation.”- Padraig Pearse, The Sovereign People, 1916.
The Zapatista communities, now numbering over 350,000 individuals in an area of roughly 25000 km2, and economy are largely organised on a decentralised federal and cooperative basis.
With the initial insurrection of 1994 many landowners fled, abandoning the land behind, as is what happens during social revolutions-the rich know their time is up.
The land formerly belonging to the local landlords, which had been historically seized by the “robber-baron” through violence, was once again communalised by landless peasants and put to productive use-supporting and feeding the people.
Cooperative ownership of this free land became widespread after the insurrection.
This, in practice, means profit sharing through communal businesses, shared work and social decision making based on local assemblies and councils in areas such as health, education, housing and justice. Higher up committees have power over decisions affecting the whole Zapatista territory and control the EZLN-an army of defence.
These local assemblies are the supreme decision making bodies of the EZLN communities. Day to day running of the communities is directed and controlled by local delegate councils. 300 families make up a popular assemble, and anyone over age 12 can attend and have their say.
Councils of good government.
The Zapatista communities have come to very similar conclusions as the traditional Republican movement did in the past. They have decentralised power to local communities while maintaining a centralised structure that deliberates between communities and decides on military and organisational matters. This divide and balance between the local and regional decision making allows for the greatest autonomy possible at the base while maintaining the integrity and cohesiveness of the whole territory.
Zapatista area elders who compose the General Command (Revolutionary Indigenous Clandestine Committee – General Command, or CCRI-CG) are accountable to local communities but also have executive decision making power over matters of necessity, such as the latest threat by the EZLN to go to war if proposed mega projects are enacted in their territories by the Mexican government.
The communities form a federation with other communities to create autonomous municipalities, which form further ties with other municipalities to create a region. The Zapatistas were composed of initially five regions, now, as of 2019, 9 regions, in an area substantially larger than Leinster province.
Each community has 3 main administrative structures: (1) the commissariat, in charge of day-to day administration; (2) the council for land control, which deals with forestry and disputes with neighboring communities; and (3) the agencia, a community police agency
Zapatistas maintain their areas free from drug trafficking and even alcohol sales, as far as is possible, through democratic community policing.
It should be noted that Zapatistas territories are not linguistically, ethnically or religiously homogenous by any stretch, but encompass a broad range of local diversities in culture ect.
However their structure allows for and integrates the natural variations within wider Mexican society, while maintaining strength against their enemies.
A different synthesis of revolution?
Their emphasis on democratic federalist decision making, decentralisation and ecological sustainability mark’s them out from other traditionally vanguardist Mexican revolutionaries. They do not seek state power in the traditional Marxist Lenninist sense but instead aim to create and expand local structures of government to empower and support communities.
As subcommandante Marco’s states about their approach,
“Zapatismo was not Marxist- Lenninist, but it was also Marxist-Leninist. It was not university Marxism, it was not the Marxism of concrete analysis, it was not the history of Mexico, it was not the fundamentalist and millenarian indigenous thought and it was not the indigenous resistance. It was a mixture of all of this, a cocktail which was mixed in the mountain and crystallized in the combat force of the EZLN…”
Their Marxist and Maoist origins and tendencies are undeniable and they should be viewed as an updated trend, crafted to local traditions of a broader Mexican left wing tradition.
Fundamentally however, the Zapatistas are now at a “holding stage”. They have diversified their approach and are building power as they can until a fuller revolution takes place in Mexican society.
Co-operative economy.
The Zapatista economy is mainly composed of worker cooperatives, family farms and community stores with the councils of good government providing low-interest loans, (similar to the credit union loans proposed in Saol Nua), free education, radio stations and health-care to locals. The economy is largely self-reliant and agricultural, based on shared work responsibilities and cooperatives.The communities have abolished private (but not personal) ownership of property and instituted a system of communal ownership of land.
Coffee production is one of Mexico’s largest industries, however in order to circumvent large multi nationals the Zapatistas have organised there own trade routes through fair trade organisations and charities, refusing all state aid.
Co-op structures.
The general assembly of the producers is the supreme body of the cooperatives, which is convened at least once a year and elects a new administrative council every 3 years. In total, there are nearly 3000 producers included, while the amount of coffee that goes to the solidarity networks is hundreds of tonnes. They are an integral part of the Zapatista movement and therefore, they cooperate with the political structures of the movement, the “Good Government Councils” (the governmental structures of the Autonomous Rebel Zone).
The Zapatista coffee cooperatives are maybe the most obvious example of the development of alternative and autonomous economical structures in Chiapas, that and the communal ownership of land.
Through the collective organization and the cooperation with the solidarity networks of disposal, the producers receive one price for their product that can cover the cost of production while also bringing them an dignified income, which increases over the years. Also, they gain access to common structures and technical support. But it is not only the producers that benefit.
For as long as the cooperatives develop and improve their functions, they contribute some amount of their income to the autonomous programs of education, health, and to other social structures. Furthermore, these initiatives return some amount of their incomes to the Zapatista communities.
As a successful model of mutual support, that benefits both the producers and the community, capital is subverted to the needs of all, although not totally abolished.
The Zapatista communities, backed up by their army ,the EZLN, show what is possible with an insurgent community on your side. They may not have completely abolished capitalism, maintaining the market and currency, but they have effectively cleaved away autonomy and territory for their communities from the capitalist state and subverted capital to the good of the community.
They show that when the organised will of the working class is exercised, they can win.