Excellent article in The Sunday Tribune (12 May 2002), p. 6

by Ray Fri May 24, 2002 09:24

- And yes they brought everyone into the piazza read some poems and sent themn home again and nothing changed. -

This is the thing. You see the Zaps bringing one hundred thousand people together, and complain that they didn't then set up a party. I see a hundred thousand people being brought together, and being inspired to act for themselves. The zaps don't just say, 'listen to this poetry, and then go home'. (Or even 'listen to this poetry, vote for Marco, and then go home') They tell people to organise themselves, to be a zapatista in their own area, and they provide an example of democratic self-activity.

- The PRC as the article says was a split from the PRI on a leftist nationalist basis, the zapatistas could have set up something entirely different, and not just the SP.-

How many social democratic-type parties around the world were set up as 'something entirely different' originally? It doesn't matter whether they were splits from leftist nationalist parties (and where did they come from?) or set up from trade unions - without exception, give them enough time and they become reformists.

- what about a wsm type party? Or an extension of the zapatistas run the way they are run, instead they chose to call for nothing. -

They don't call for nothing, they call for self-activity. By definition, the zapatistas couldn't set up a group like their own (or a WSM type group) in Mexico city, or anywhere else. The important thing about such groups is that they are run from below, not directed by a leadership in another province.

- This was a squandered opportunity and history will record it that way. They could have called for many things if not a traditional party, they called for nothing. -

Come one, really. You know that the zaps have constantly called for other people to be active, and to set up their own organisations, don't you? They just haven't set something up with themselves as leaders.

- And BTW they had no problem speaking in the senate and camped outside until they could so why not run for it. -

I've been on protests outside the Dail and county councils, that doesn't mean I want to be a TD or councillor.

by ph Thu May 23, 2002 16:18

-

"You know what the criticisms contained in the article looked like to me?
The zaps are bad because
1) They didn't form a Mexican Socialist Party
2) Er, thats it..."

Thats a simplistic way of looking at it. The problem is you consider all parties or any form of party for people drowning themselves under a leadership. We are all drones etc. And yes they brought everyone into the piazza read some poems and sent themn home again and nothing changed. A party at least would have kept things up.
The PRC as the article says was a split from the PRI on a leftist nationalist basis, the zapatistas could have set up something entirely different, and not just the SP. what about a wsm type party? Or an extension of the zapatistas run the way they are run, instead they chose to call for nothing. This was a squandered opportunity and history will record it that way. They could have called for many things if not a traditional party, they called for nothing. And BTW they had no problem speaking in the senate and camped outside until they could so why not run for it.

by Ray Mon May 20, 2002 09:57

- I will acknowledge that the zapatistas are democratic, i never thought otherwise, maybe I am being to critical on them. I just remeber the dissapointment after mexico city. I'm sure you know what was going on at the time the build up the media pressure etc. I saw them in three cities myself, thousands there. But the fact was he talked and talked and talked. But at the end of the day nothing changed no proposals nothing. -

You know what the criticisms contained in the article looked like to me?
The zaps are bad because
1) They didn't form a Mexican Socialist Party
2) Er, thats it...

Its funny, because it talks about how the PRD has become more and more reformist, and then says the zaps should form a political party ... like the PRD.
The demonstrations reported in the article brought together thousands of workers, students, and radicals of every description, but the zaps are bad because they didn't say, "Put us in charge, and we will solve everything!"
You're still looking for a nicer set of rulers. You need to start looking into self-activity.

by Ph Fri May 17, 2002 19:01

I will acknowledge that the zapatistas are democratic, i never thought otherwise, maybe I am being to critical on them. I just remeber the dissapointment after mexico city. I'm sure you know what was going on at the time the build up the media pressure etc. I saw them in three cities myself, thousands there. But the fact was he talked and talked and talked. But at the end of the day nothing changed no proposals nothing.
Maybe this isn't what the zapatistas is about and of course they improved the lives of the indiginious, how long can it last though?

Heres a very old article from the time.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/aprmay/Contents/whatnow/whatnow.html written by a mexican. I'm not just trying to push a party position forward, this dissapointment was very real.

One that shocked me the most was his "i'm not a revolutionary, i'm a rebel"

As for the WSM what it would have to do to convince me is create a mass movement, I think the SP has a chance of doing this and the elections help with this.
Anarchism is possible in a case of a unified world revolution. But it will be one country at a time, and we will need some sort national structure (state) to defend ourselves.

by Andrew Fri May 17, 2002 11:01

Hi folks,

Ray just pointed out this discussion to me. a few comments

1. A figure of 150 dead in the jan '94 rising is about right when you take into account army execution of prisoners etc.

2. But, and I think PH is failing to take the actual conditions before the rising into account, its important to realise that death squad style activity in Mexico in general and Chiapas in particular was not unusual prior to '94. Nationally the PRD (who are fairly tame social democratic party) had around 700 members killed or disappeared in the 1980's. In Chiapas there were dozens of deaths and disapperances of activists in the 80's which is part of the reason the indigenous communities choose the military route.

3. It was the Zapatista communities rather then the military leadership of the EZLN that choose to go to war in Jan 1994. The leadership actually felt this was a mistake but a consulta in late '93 of the communites made this decision. Details of this and the consulta and other decision making mechanisms at [url]http://struggle.ws/mexico/comment/andrew_diff_feb01.html[/url]
which I would strongly recommend you read PH as it explains the political project of the Zapatistas i n a lot more detail then you are obviously aware.

4. PH is in fact wrong to think that the Zapatistas have not tried to stir up similar movements in other parts of Mexico. In fact they have put huge efforts into this, hosting many conferences in Chiapas and when they could travelling to other areas of Mexico. They have succesfully built links with some movement, notably the radical teachers union.

In fact this was the real purpose of the march to mexico city. If you read the detail you will find that the Zapatistas stopped in 15 or so cities en route holding not only mass assemblies but also lots of small group meetings. They did the same thing in mexico city itslef.

Again you need to understand that their political project is about self-activity. The large demonstrations in mexico city were seen as a chance to encourage people to become active themselves - you seem to think something else was possible with these when it was not.

Anyway as this thread is lost in the archive can I suggest we continue the discussion in the Zapatista thread at [url]http://flag.blackened.net/wwwthreads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=revoltnew[/url]

by Ray Fri May 17, 2002 10:05

- Fair point on the media attention.
The numbers I can't remember where they came from, but I was sure it was over one hundred and wasn't there heavy fighting in Ocosingo? -

Well, I could be wrong, but they're the only figures I could find in my (brief) search. As far as I could see, the only real fighting was in Ocosingo, and that's were the two deaths were.

- And if you do go into principal cities in Mexico armed and masked (if they were masked). You will be attacked by the army and thats a simple fact , right or wrong. -

They didn't try to hold the cities though, did they? As I remember, they went into the cities and then left when the army turned up.

- The automonas areas are good for what they are, but honestly its not going to be enough. Every easter if you go up to the jungles you see massive fires being burnt by people desperate for a piece of land. The zapatista revolution won't be enough to remove starvation existance. Its got to be alot bigger.-

I'm not suggesting you can create socialism in one country, let alone in part of one Mexican province. But if you want to write the zaps off as a failure, you've got to show that people are worse off now then they were before, or that there was something the zaps should have done which they didn't do. The important thing, for me, is the way the autonomous areas were organised, the fact that they were run democratically by the villages, and not by some revolutionary military council.

But its not like the zaps were isolationist either, is it? There were the intercontinental gatherings, the constant stream of messages, the zapatour, and all the rest. They clearly tried to build support outside Chiapas, and outside Mexico, and have been quite influential. So what do you think they should have done? Tried to expand 'their' territory, which would have resulted in many more deaths and catastrpohic defeat? Declared themselves the leaders of an international revolution?

- But what the have succeeded in gaining fair enough, I don't oppose them. What I did oppose at the beginning of this debate was uncritial support and people looking towards them for what they aren't. -

I think you misunderstand the reasons why people look to them. Although I'm sure there's a fair amount of guns and balaclava romanticism, as there was with the Sandinistas, the IRA, or Geuvara, there's a lot more to it than that. People are inspired by the intercontinental gathering, which brought together so many different people in a loose, but effective, organisation. (WSM articles have argued that these intercontinentals have been one of the most important factors in creating the global anti-x movement) People are also inspired by the democracy within the zap areas. Its impossible to over-emphasise how important this is, and how different from most other similar struggles.

- The WSM hasn't made me write off anarchism, it hasn't convinced me anarchism is unworkable, but it hasn't convinced me its workable either. -

Well, you asked for an anarchist organisation getting results, and I pointed to one. What would they have to do to convince you that anarchism is workable? (and do you apply the same test to the SP's claim that socialism is workable?)

- Which is more to the point. As for the SP for me getting people elected is serious progress. This was probably the main reason I joined, it showed a seriousness. And it meant I heard of it too! A rejection of every entering the bourgeois parliments even for a tactical reason or getting your name out is a mistake in my opinion. -

Is publicity the only gain? Why not run a candidate who refuses to take his/her seat? Who argues that parliamentary democracy is a sham? Wouldn't that garner a lot of publicity, and make sure the name of the SP is widely known?

by ph Thu May 16, 2002 17:26

I have read alot of the anarchist material on the zapatistas. The vast majority of my information came from there. The whole time I was in mexico I was on the email list. Although I haven't been keeping up lately.

Fair point on the media attention.
The numbers I can't remember where they came from, but I was sure it was over one hundred and wasn't there heavy fighting in Ocosingo? But only two deaths? Anyway I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong but it was a little more than a stroll through the park.

And if you do go into principal cities in Mexico armed and masked (if they were masked). You will be attacked by the army and thats a simple fact , right or wrong.

I'll read up a little more anyway.

The automonas areas are good for what they are, but honestly its not going to be enough. Every easter if you go up to the jungles you see massive fires being burnt by people desperate for a piece of land. The zapatista revolution won't be enough to remove starvation existance. Its got to be alot bigger.

But what the have succeeded in gaining fair enough, I don't oppose them. What I did oppose at the beginning of this debate was uncritial support and people looking towards them for what they aren't.

The WSM hasn't made me write off anarchism, it hasn't convinced me anarchism is unworkable, but it hasn't convinced me its workable either. Which is more to the point. As for the SP for me getting people elected is serious progress. This was probably the main reason I joined, it showed a seriousness. And it meant I heard of it too!
A rejection of every entering the bourgeois parliments even for a tactical reason or getting your name out is a mistake in my opinion.

by Ray Thu May 16, 2002 16:38

I'll repeat the recommendation to check out those web pages, the contain far more information than I could possibly get across (and much more than I know). Anyway...

-But 150 died in the armed uprising itself.-

Do you have a reference for this? 'Armed uprising' is a misnomer, the zaps didn't get into a shooting match with the army. According to the interview here
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/marcos_interview_jan94.html
the only fighting was in Ocosingo, and only 2 died there. (Though this was early in January, there may have been more deaths later)

-But what was the point in it if they only intended to fight for a day and be slaughtered.-

Well that wasn't what they did. They walked into the towns, and then they walked out again. It wasn't like the GPO.

They got world media attention, sure. And that media attention meant the Mexican government didn't have a free hand in attacking them. More importantly though, it meant the government and large landowners pulled out of large parts of Chiapas, meaning the land could be taken over and run by the self-organised autonomous municipalities.
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/comment/auto_munc_nov98.html

I think the reason some people are disappointed with the zaps is that they didn't declare themselves the revolutionary government of Mexico. They didn't try to take over the state, and they showed little interest in expanding 'their' territory. Their message to the rest of Mexico (and the world) was not, "Join us, and we will come liberate you." It was "Be a Zapatista in your own area."

That was the ethos of the Intercontinental gathering
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/andrew/encounter1_report.html
People went to exchange information, and to have discussions, not to be told what to do, or worship at a shrine of 'actually existing socialism'. It also, naturally, kept the media's attention on Mexico, which kept the army out of the autonomous areas.

I think your disappointment is misplaced. Its not that they failed in their goals, so much as that they never had the goals you expected. The success of the Zapatistas wasn't that they conquered territory, but in the autonomous areas - particularly, the fact that these areas weren't run by your standard 'benevolent' dictatorship, but democratically.

Anyway, read those pages.

-Show me an anarchist movement getting some results and I may reject the need for a party.-

What results are you looking for? What has the SP achieved that the WSM hasn't?* What is the weakness in the practice of the WSM that convinces you anarchism is unworkable?

*(given that I don't think getting someone elected is a worthwhile goal)

by ph Thu May 16, 2002 14:24

Why did the zapatistas have the uprising, which cost them dearly. I know the army and ranchers do and did kill them. But 150 died in the armed uprising itself. Which obviously if there had been no uprising wouldn't have been fighting. But what was the point in it if they only intended to fight for a day and be slaughtered. To get world attention? Its a costly way to do it. If they had captured one of the cities would they have just stopped. Who knows, I do seem to remember a declaration of war on the mexican state and a call to arms though. Not idle words when fighting is happening.

Either way they aren't considered a threat. I remeber seeing alot of advertising with paradies of Marcos, in furniture adds and supermarket adds and such, "low prices for the people" you can imagine. But could you imagine a similar thing for the ira, never. That goes for the dolls and tshirts too. Most people I spoke too, I lived in tuxtla the capital of the region didn't rate them. They liked them but gave up on them, reckoned they were happy with the attention. And I'll be the first to admit I was alot more entusiatic than them. I was was impressed by the zapatour and the rest. But after they did it and spoke to the senate, then what? Nothing changed.
The people remain in terrible poverty and I don't see a way out. Call me pessimstic, but sometimes reality hits. There was a huge dissapointment at the end of the zapatour. By alot of people and since then I questioned them, and continue to.
But really what was it going to get without launching a movement, they spoke to the senate, so what?

I don't know what your question was for me saying nothing, I know about the new ideas (i just don't think they are new) I just don't see them working. Show me an anarchist movement getting some results and I may reject the need for a party. I don't see it happening thats all.

But don't get me wrong on the zapatistas, I like what they say them alot. I do support their cause. But what they are fighting and doing has basically nothing in common with the siuation in europe. And an armed uprising of a tiny minority should not be advocated. And the tactic hasn't worked for them so I don't see how it will work for us in europe.

by Ray Thu May 16, 2002 09:39

I'd recommend some of these articles about the Zapatistas
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/anarchist.html
because you don't seem to be aware of why they're held up as a model. For example, the 'Zapatista army' is not simply internally democratic, it is also under the control of the people of Chiapas. This is a good article
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/comment/andrew_diff_feb01.html

I'm not going to argue that the Zapatistas are perfect, but they are more than just another guerilla army, and its the differences that are important.

by marcos Wed May 15, 2002 16:24

Thanks for the reply. Though you didn't reply at all. I do repeat: whereas guerrilla group in Central and South America have carried on with armed struggle for a long time, the Zapatistas abandoned it as soon as they started. Tell me about one single episode of armed attack they have carried on? Don't bother, there has been none. I do repeat: it is silly to say that 150 people have been killed because of the Zapatistas. And, what's more, it isn't true. The Mexican army has always killed people in that region.
Look, it doesn't matter. You're obviously free to try to build your party/international/whatever (by the way, I think that Joe Higgins is a decent man--and I'm sure that there is plenty of decent people in the SP), but your model of organization belongs to the past, I'm more interested in the present and, of course, the future.

by ph - sp Wed May 15, 2002 15:53

It seems to me we are moving into (or have moved into) a completely new phase of class struggle. The nineties were the years of single issue campaigns, this began to converge in the anti globalisation movement when everyone realised they had the same enemy. From Brazil to Seattle etc. Also because of the collapse of the ussr everything has changed. In the past someone like Chavez would have gone over to the east. But this option doesn't exist anymore. Of course the main advantage of this is now we don't have stalinists purposely derailing revolutions as in spain or france.

But we have gone from single issue campaigns to a united campaign of what we are against (of sorts). The next question is what we are for.
And of course how to succeed. From this we must look at history. The zapatistas semi insurrection
did declare war on the state. And if they had taken the cities and not been slaughtered I think they would have carried on. And although the mexican army killed them they must take responsiblity for their actions. I'm no pacisist or anything but to me it was a big waste of life. The zapatista model, is it that different for other guerrilla models used before? Its just smaller and more popular and less of a threat to the state thats all. And when the cubans started off they were the same size just as popular and spoke the same way.

Just to clarify the word leader, I consider a delegate or spokesperson even on the anarchist basis to be a type of leader. Maybe its a language or definition thing. But the subcommandantes meet as delegates, discuss and plan actions. Maybe I should say delegate.
My point about the zapatista model is it isn't successful. They have NOT succeed in getting the results. Their aims are not high if they had put candidates up for the local gov, (where the greens PT and PRD) are in power. The state most likely would have given in on the san andreas demands, (which won't solve the problems either, but my point is there tactics today haven't even got what a reformist party might have). But they have not succeeded. We can sing all day about how good they are, but the fact is they aren't getting anywhere. And as I said before they unlike most movements had millions behind them. I fear the window will close on them.

And the fact of the war in chiapas is it is as much a civil war broken along class lines as a civil rights war. Alot of the fighting has been inter indigininous (over land rights) and there is also a religious element to it with the evangelical prodestands that have been evicted.

But what new ways of organising are you talking about. Genova was a march, the main people involved were the RC, casarinis people and the FIOM metalworkers. The police attacked it. This has been happening for a long long time, this is where May Day came from. Blockading the conference wasn't new either. Even last year if you remeber the farmers blockaded the meat factories at home.
Anarchism is as old as Marxism as you know.
RTS was blockading a street, okay there was music, but really this isn't new.

We are RE-LEARNING tactics and processes that
have been used many many times before.

I think we are moving away from the serious defeats of the past. And everything is new you are right, as the USSr is gone. But in the end the goal is to defeat the state and capital. In my opinion we will need revolutionary parties to do that. Not A revolutionary party but revolutionary parties. (in the word party I would include groups like WSM). The parties must be democratic with a delegate basis and active. But we do need perspectives and try to plan a little. And we have to be critical if something isn't working say so. And we don't read marx as in bible class as many anarchists believe and we don't say lenin was infallible. Or trotsky for that matter,

You can say my party hasn't had much success either, but we don't have millions behind it and the few things we have set out to do we have gotten.

Every process of the movement is excellent from strikes to street parties but we have to keep discussing and keep moving forward. And at the end of the day to really win we will need to convince a MAJORITY of workers industrial and others. A minority group like the zapatistas although they can be popular won't do it. We need the majority. Theres no point in smugly staying in a tiny minority and not sullying ourselves with bourgeois parliments. We have to reach everyone and not just create a sub culture. This is very important. In Italy there is a left sub culture that seems to be in the process of seperating itself from the majority society. It hasn't happened but its a danger. Not sullying themselves with reformist union demos and such. And sometimes quite arrongantly. This is a serious danger to the movement.

In conclusion I want a delegate and fully democratic party also. And my points on the zapatistas are we just have to critically examine every group or tactic to simply see if it works or not. For me I haven't seen anything that works better than strike action, as a real way of defeating the state. Everything else as an auxillary sure. But to win we must go much further.

If I am wrong and I see a group such as an anarchist one succeeding and winning real gains I will revise what I think. But I have to be convinced by actions as much as words, and results.

by Marcos Wed May 15, 2002 12:31

On the first of january 1994, as soon as they entered in S. Christobal de las Casas, the Zapatistas declared the end of their armed struggle. This is one of the paradoxes of Zapatism. It is, to say the least, disingenuous to say that 150 people have been killed because of the Zapatistas' insurrection. The Mexican army has never stopped killing indigenous people, it certainly did need any further excuse. However, the following quote should clarify a few things. Marcos is not the leader of the Zapatistas, he has taken on the role of spokesperson because most indigenous people from that area don't speak spanish: "the leaders of the EZLN are the best men and the best women of the tzetal, tzotzil, chol, rojolabal, mam and zoque ethnic groups...They are the democratic and collective direction of the EZLN".
Is there a lesson for us? As you keep talking about "models", then if you you really want to know my opinion I'll say "yes".
But let me ask you something: in your opinion, is there any reason why people are taking on the capitalist system in new ways? Have you noticed that in Chiapas, Seattle, Prague, Genoa, something new has happened? Do you think that people who went there because they were looking for the leadership of this or that international or revolutionary party? Or rather, after too many years of empty lefty rhetoric and parades, a lot of people decided that it was time to take action? Do you thing that now, after all this, you can reproduce the old (I'd say ancient) models of organization as if nothing had happened? I'm just asking.

by ph Tue May 14, 2002 17:56

Well thats not quite true, the zapatistas did lead an armed uprising which cost the lives of 150 of their comrades and there have been quite a few deaths since. Isn't that taking a leadership role? the people of the cities where the uprising took place weren't asked about it.

Yet there have been very little gains from this. Its all well and good to say they don't want to be be leaders and no party line and all the rest but they led an armed uprising that lead to many deaths. If you are going to lead people in an armed uprising its simply not good enough to say "we are the people" etc. I know it is a collective movement but not everyone was asked about the war.

There is quite a few anti zapatista indigenous I'm sure you know of the massacres. Much of it is placed on class lines with some richer ones supporting PRI gangsters. Either way it is important to critize all movements if you want to critizize my group (SP/CWI) thats fine. thats the point of these discussions. Just because the goal is good shouldn't end all discussion.

But writing off mistakes by saying they are the collective will isn't good enough. And I'm not knocking the zapatista leadership (and they do have a leadership, the sub commandantes marcos and ester et all) because they made the usual mistakes, but its not often a movement has the attention of a whole country and millions are coming out in active support as with the zapatour. Something should have been launched especially class struggle such as strikes and such and a political struggle. Not to do it (as was chosen by the leadership) is a squandered opportunity that the people they represent are suffering from today. In mexico today the people in the mountains of chaipas simply do not have the strenght to defeat the state, look at guetamala which was a much bigger uprising and a smaller country.

On the romantic line I didn't mean any offence by it but there is no doubht they have been romantisized And this has a habit of blinding people to uncritical support. But obviously you have thought about this. And groups such as Ya Basta in Italy have based themselves on the zapatistas (minus the guns). So they do act as a role model.

Either way this all needs to be debated which is what anarchism is supposed to be about. From what I've seen on this website in general its often the libetarians who seem to be more closed minded than the "statists". I'm not necessarly including you in this but have a look around some of the discussions.

I may be looking at this from a certin viewpoint sbut some facts are facts, such as the deaths and failure and most likely this will continue. And part of the reason is they had no program or plan wich may not sound fashionable but in my opinion is true.

by Marcos Tue May 14, 2002 16:58

Sure. The Zapatists have 1000 and 1 fault and in fact being a model is about the last thing they want. And this is one key difference between them and 'the official left' here in Ireland. Differently from the SWP, they don't want to be our leaders, they don't pretend that they have all the answers and the perfect party line, that's why your critique is completely misplaced.
It's not a matter of this or that fault in 'the line': and that is simply because there is no party line, there is the collective will of the indigenous people of Chiapas. If you want to criticise them, that's of course fine, but you should revise your critical paradigms accordingly.
Anyhow, we are not looking for models to romanticize (like for instance those who are stuck to Lenin's position on the revolutionary party one century later), we are looking for new, effective and inclusive ways of fighting and organising against the present world order.

by ph Tue May 14, 2002 14:47

You've got a very romantic view of sub commandante Marcos and co, number one they have run into a brick wall and since the zapatour they have had a very hard time making progress. They missed a golden opportunity when millions came out to support them they could have built something. Number two their demands are reforms of the san andreas accords which in themselves are not going to solve anything. No. 3 like it or not they are seen as left to pretty much the whole world. no. 4 they talk alot about not wanting a program but if you don't say anything why do you expect anyone to listen. Parables will get you so far. no. 5 unfortunately they are failing fundamentaly in their goals so they are not the ones to put on a pedestal. Most chapenacos have long given up on them. Sad but true, they had a big opportunity last year but they chose not to take it.

In conclusion they are not the role model for the anti globalisation/capitalist movement we should learn from their mistakes.

This BTW is not anti zapatista I am just pointing out some truths. I support their goals unconditionaly but not uncritically.

by marcos Tue May 14, 2002 14:03

I understand what you're saying and we surely agree on a lot of things. But why don't you want to historicise the word 'left'? If I remember my history correctly, this political definition was first introduced to define the seat disposition in the US parliament.
Is this definition still useful? Do we really want to identify ourselves with Clinton/Gore's politics? I don't. Zapatism and, as far as I'm concerned, the new anti-capitalist movement represents an irreversible and unnegotiable break from the traditional imagery of the left.

by Chekov Tue May 14, 2002 13:44

Okay, I phrased the previous post a little wrong. What I should have said was that political movements are generally categorised as left or right, depending on how much they claim to put people before profits. The tag left and right is also applied very much in relation to whatever other political positions are present within the relevant political space.

But my point remains that there is nothing outside left and right. It is a gross simplification and is nowadays almost meaningless, but it is by definition all inclusive. The leftness or rightness of a political position have historically been understood to say nothing about the libertarian or authoritarian nature of the position. This is simply another scale, another altogether different way of contrasting different positions. For example, the Spanish CNT has historically been understood to have been left libertarian, while the Stalinist communist party is generally understood as having been left authoritarian. It is certainly possible to come up with a set of criterion that either revises this traditional understanding and thus recategorises one of these two descriptions (eg "the CNT was not part of the left"). It is also possible to come up with a set of criterion that differentiates RTS/Zapatista-like movements equally from the CNT and the Russian CP. However I think that it is impossible to do this in a way that would be historically consistant with the way the word 'left' has been used, and anyway what's the point?

To put it mathematically: the measurement of leftness or rightness of a political position is the projection onto a one-dimensional axis of a point which resides in a space of infinite dimensions. It is possible to say that this projection loses so much information as to render the 'leftness score' meaningless as a basis for imparting political information, however it is impossible to claim to transcend the projection without defining a fixed and non-relative set of properties which describe the terms.

Anyway, I realise that I am getting silly here, but I really don't think that there is any point in coming up with a rigid definition of left and right. Better just to say that it is a not-very-useful categorisation. In any case, by claiming that the RTS protest was hijacked by left wing politics, the capitalist media clearly want to portray the protest as being somehow a-political which it isn't. For example see the first RTS statement on the indymedia front page which says that RTS is 'anti-capitalist', which in most people's books makes it of the left.

by marcos Tue May 14, 2002 11:37

you're seriously mistaken. if the majority of the people understood that 'left' means for the people, they would support the left, wouldn't they? in fact they don't. for example, the majority of the people (i.e. the working class) in ireland either don't vote or vote for 'the right'. so? you can always say that the majority of the people are 'backward' or just stupid, and that's why you need a vanguard party that preaches at and educates them, etc. (i.e. swp).
i don't believe that for a second, and so i have no time for the left. some people on the left call themselves marxists, please go and read marx: tell me where, exactly, marx mentions the left? just tell me. he says working men (not lefties!) of all countries unite.

by chekov Tue May 14, 2002 10:08

As far as the vast majority of people understand it, left means "for the people" while right means "for the rich/powerful". This is a simplistic division granted, but it is a simple bipolar categorisation and any attempt to claim that a particular politics is outside of this division is nonsensical and requires a redefinition of the terms. There is no point in doing this, as much as you might want to dissasociate yourself from other left forces.

by Marcos Mon May 13, 2002 19:30

as the zapatists said when the indigenous people of chiapas started their insurrection, we don't look at the political parties, left or whatever, we look at civil society, at the overwhelming majority of people who have no parties, who don't identify themselves either with the right or the left. this is today's revolutionary movement, project and power. "the left" is over (good riddance to bad stock), long live the revolution.

by info-man uk Mon May 13, 2002 17:04

any links to the articles for plp over the irish sea, this is an important story and may give rts events, here which have stopped, a new impetus.

by hugo sanchez Mon May 13, 2002 14:04

The article by nell mccafferty was typical of the sunday papers responce, see: eilis o'hanlon in the irish independent, see: tom mcguirk in the business post, and also see: the sunday times(dont know authors name-male). the only remotely consteuctive article in our sunday papers was on the back page of the sunday tribune main section. titled who'll police these thugs? by diarmuid doyle. i'm sorry to hear some individuals found mccafferty's article constructive, it most certainly was not. as for the conservative/left wing thing, i agree totally with chekov, even though i am a socialist. rts is a fundamentally left wing thing, if someone out there begs to differ i would love to hear their arguement.

by Paul Moloney - paulmoloney.org Mon May 13, 2002 09:30 paul_moloney at hotmail dot com

...were Sinn Fein doing making speechs at the demo anyway? I know they're experts at brutality, but it seemed a little odd to me anyway.

P.

by Chekov Mon May 13, 2002 03:32

Anarchists to be precise (at least most of them identify as anarchists as far as I know, and some of them WERE members of left wing groups although not the SWP/GR).

Just because the SWP tried to hijack it doesn't mean that we should let the meeja try to say that this was somehow nothing to do with left wing politics.

by shh Mon May 13, 2002 01:05

that's still better than calling every conservative hack in Ireland to try to get an interview (Joe Carolan).

by Sean D Mon May 13, 2002 00:59

Now the sectarians can quote conservative hacks like Nell McCafferty who's long since deserted any radical leanings to demonstrate a resonance for their petty whimpering. Get over it, do or say something useful for a change.

by The voice Sun May 12, 2002 18:11

I can't find any link to today's The Sunday Tribune. The story is at p. 6, the author is Nell McCafferty, original title "Threat of peaceful handstands".

by dan uk Sun May 12, 2002 16:10

please print full story, no web site for this paper or link?

cheers dan