Theses on Leninism and the EZLN

1. The EZLN, seen as a revolutionary alternative to what passes for the left today, have never presented themselves as such, and to think so is to stay within the boundaries of Leninist manicheanism.

2. The Leninists consider them either reformist or counterrevolutionary, and they are both: their entire goal is to help reform and reshape and change the lives of Mexico's Mayan population, and too do they refuse to be a vanguard -- they shit on our vanguards.

3. Counterrevolutionary:
A). A slur whose meaning and meaninglessness are both contained within the discursive boundaries of ideological dogmatism, all of which serve to further alienate people from potential solutions as they present themselves -- especially since no revolutionary scenarios have happened as of late in this country on a mass scale. B). Anyone who either profits from, works for or supports dominant power structures, and anyone whose implicit support can be deduced from their skepticism regarding the nature of "radical" organizations
C). Fightback, whose method and goal are both at odds and self-defeating

4. The Zapatistas are revolutionary in the definition given by Solidarity in As We see it: "Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification" (Thesis 7).

5. Leninism is not revolutionary. Leninism has done more to discredit revolution than the supposed "capitalists". Leninism has turned the idea of revolution into a parody of its potential self by allowing it to remain so limited in its scope, and so rigid in its structure and application.

6. Revolution is change, and the EZLN have adapted to new modes of communication and to new ideas. Leninism has not.

7. Their attempt to dialogue with the government indicates a desire for a peaceful resolution to the land conflict, despite the new unfortunate openings for state repression -- or the opening for a populist political party seeking office to allow a autonomy, but that would only be a temporary or limited autonomy given the nature of Capital. Perhaps that example is enough.

8. Dialogue is the foundation of their ideological non-ideology, and is thus an example to follow. Dialogue in place of Lenin's "iron discipline".

9. Tactical fluidity, despite being a supposed hallmark of Leninist thought, and indeed it's only purpose, has been achieved by the EZLN, who are in that regard more Leninist than the Leninists despite being their political opposite

10. Their use of non-violence is both pragmatic and necessary. They'd both be decimated and they'd lose the sympathy required for their strategy were they to start engaging in partisan activity.

11. They also see themselves as responsible for the Mayan people, and to use violence for their cause would cause state repression and would thus be a betrayal of their purpose.

12. The Maoist idea of the Mass Line is likewise a parody of direct democracy utilized so loyally by the EZLN

13. A revolution conducted without the goals of social autonomy, social equality and developed community in mind is not a revolution worth having or fighting for.

14. The EZLN works within contemporary ethical standards which give them some edge over both the Mexican government and Leninist organizations whose ethical imperatives are based on the need to self-perpetuate.

15. No Leninist revolution is worth fighting for, and indeed it is necessary to fight against as it will inevitably become a counterrevolutionary

16. The ideals mention in thesis 9 are often dismissed as idealistic, but it's better to be idealistic and fail than to be a ruthless pragmatist and 'succeed'. We all know what Leninist successes look like. Failure is much more attractive than that option.

17. History is important, but no more than direct experience. Theoretical knowledge is important, but no more than direct experience. Ideological expertise is important, but no more than direct experience. People who dismiss the experiences of dedicated activists create trivial divisions, and are part of the problem.

18. Their primary tactic, media exposure, is both a positive attempt to widen their reach for people ot take notice, a populist move, and a recuperation into the spectacle. Their tactic depends on being able to be heard and they could be silenced through countermedia, through being nothing more than an image, to being of little consequence in that regard. Marcos' communiques have the same dual-function.

19. The Zapatistas, if nothing else, are an example of principled social activism. Organizations serve people, people don't serve organizations.