Note: Originally written as a term-paper by the end of 2008, this essay provides an overview of the innovations that Zapatistas brought in the field of social revolutions. It sketches the contours of the advancement of the idea of revolution through the example of the one carried by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), the indigenous people and civil society in Chiapas, Mexico. This is a draft version that I intend to send it for publication. Any comments are welcome, and please ask for citation.

Introduction

“[Zapatistas] came like prehistoric people emerging out of their caves, talking of dignity and humanity. Did they not see how ridiculous they were? Had they not learnt from the bitterness of history? Did they not know that the age of revolution was finished, that grand narratives were a thing of the past? Did they not know what had happened to all the Latin American revolutions? Had they not heard of the fall of the Soviet Union? Had they not heard of Pol Pot?” – John Holloway

The concept of revolution has frequently been delegitimized and ridiculed as outdated or failed in both social sciences and mainstream politics. However, several cases, among which the one of the Zapatista Movement in Chiapas, Mexico, have proven that revolution did not leave the historical scene after 1989 and should still be considered as another possible variant of political and social change (Foran, 1997).

Instead of losing significance, The Revolution has been gradually redefined into a more sensible and less concise form. The process of contemporizing the meta-narrative of revolt embraced two main features: first, the rethinking of the concept of power as a consequence of the postmodern and poststructuralist approach to politics, and second, the effects of the emergence of the anti-corporate globalization resistance (alterglobalism).

The initial aim of this essay is to sketch the contours of the advancement of the idea of revolution through the example of the one carried by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), the indigenous people and civil society in Chiapas, Mexico.

“Postmodern Revolution”: a Brief Discussion

On the notion of “Revolution”

What gives one the right to describe the political and social change in parts of Chiapas as a revolution? The terminology used in scholar and journalist literature concerning the political events stirred by the Zapatistas has not been attuned. Authors have been using terms like “uprising”, “insurgency”, “rebellion”, “liberation”, “movement”, “guerilla warfare”, etc. Nevertheless, in this paper, the case is referred to as “revolution”. Regarding the other terminology – “army” or “guerilla” is used when referring to EZLN (Zapatista Army of National Liberation), which is the main actor in this revolution. “Movement” is for the broad corpus encompassed by EZLN, indigenous communities, civil society actors and their supporters and their role as carrier of the revolution in general. “Uprising” or “insurgency” is being used for the actions that happened on 1st of January, 1994, when several thousands members of EZLN took over many strategical points and held them for 13 days, until achieving cease-fire. “Rebellion” is used in similar, yet broader sense, referring mostly to the manifestation of resistance to the regime by EZLN and its supporters.

Some socialist authors even argue that the postulates of the Zapatistas are contradictory especially in terms of not seeking power, hence their “postmodern revolution” should not be considered as a real one (Gonzales, 2000). However, I have little doubt that in any classical interpretation, there might be an argument against the revolution-ness of Zapatistas. If one carefully takes a look of certain aspects of the development of the events, a diagnosis of revolution in Chiapas can be clearly established.

Speaking in the framework of revolutions, the chain of events taking place in Chiapas as to what I refer to as Zapatista revolution, as be seen further, was deeply rooted in a social disequilibrium caused by socioeconomic changes. The guerilla and civilian forces were mobilized in what can be said a phase of preparation. The act of contestation can be accurately pointed out – it was the Uprising on the New Years Eve 1994. The marginalization of the Mexican governmental institutions and the establishment of de facto autonomies (Stavenhagen, 2002) under native indigenous self-government followed, being the phase of dissolution of traditional power. Still, it is a non-recognized autonomy (Cal y Mayor, 2003) that is excercised in Chiapas, and that is why some may have not be convinced in the revolution-ness of the Zapatistas.

Nonetheless, by applying the definition of Charles Tilly (1978), one has no dillemas in concluding that what occured in Chiapas is at least a clear example of “revolutionary situtation” , since there was multiplication of polities, seen in the competitive claims of sovereignty over a particular territory. There was no ultimate “taking over” the state apparatus however, simply because Zapatistas do not see the State institutions as a favorable form of political organization. What was the case in Chiapas was the effective practice of self-government in the Zapatista autonomies, and the eager government of Chiapas and the federal government of Mexico vainly trying to reclaim their power over the conditionally said, lost territories. For Tilly (1978), the provisional reference point here is the displacement of power. It might seem hard to internalize, but in fact, in Chiapas there is a total displacement of power even without taking over the governmental power.

This sounds more puzzling than it really is, and will be gradually elaborated through the paper; the complex balance of power in Chiapas has much to do with the reading of power by Zapatistas. It irresistibly corresponds with the poststructural idea of power as multi-dimensional and inherent to society. Hence the atomization and redistribution of power to different entities in the civil society (some authors say “civil society revolution” (Esteva, 2003) ) which are not the State in Chiapas. The new subjects of power manifest differently and diversely by playing different roles of the State. For instance, Zapatista committees take care about the security, indigenous committees decide upon local matters, the Church does the charity and NGOs build the infrastructure. The State as such has been marginalized, but the power vacuum left behind it is not fulfilled by not as nearly as similar subject. Still, the fact that the State is marginalized, by itself means it persists and there is always the chance for it to come and try to regain its previous position. Speaking empirically though, a strong argument in terms of whether the revolutionary outcome in Chiapas is feasible or not, can be found in the duration of the Movement – Zapatista autonomies have been sustained for almost 15 years despite several serious attempts of the government to obstruct them, meaning the Movement has passed even the “sustainability test” for a revolution.

With this discussion, I have no intention of relativizing Tilly’s argument. His theory is built upon the modern comprehension of power and that is why it is hard to frame the Zapatista revolution in such terms. Much of the meaning of the revolution is contained in the Zapatismo political philosophy and the platform of the movement. It is a whole new political language, as it will be seen, much close to postmodern discourses. As John Holloway puts it:

“What, then, does revolution mean if it does not mean taking state power or even becoming powerful? The answer is simple: we do not know, we have to learn.”

Moving beyond modernity

On the other hand, the events in Chiapas, have been perceived as post-modern from the very beginning.

Roger Burbach (1994) emphasized that, as he reffered to it, the Zapatista rebellion “is an attempt to move beyond politics of modernity, be they of the [...] government or of past national liberation movements”, which is narrow, yet quite a logical statement. However, it should be noted that the definition of “moving beyond modernity” is not as nearly as simplistic as it seems to be and has a multi-layered background concerning the particular case. Politics and in general, the social order of modernity, was actually what led to the Zapatista revolution.

Modernity in Chiapas was introduced with the intensive industrialization starting in the 1970s and the liberalization of the market dating back in the 1980s. The abundance of resources, quite well preserved, was an additional stimulus for the Mexican government to adopt economic reformist policies particularly concerning Chiapas. In order to grasp the other aspects of the modernity and its effects, one can not omit the impact it had on the rural, mostly indigenous populations.

The process of economic transformation was accompanied by practicing the already established policy concerning the indigenous population, known as indigenismo (Tressierra, 1994). Declared as being in favor of the indigenous people’s rights, indigenismo in fact was a facade under which colonialist deeds were hidden, aiming to obstruct efforts for grassroots activism of indigenous population and its further development in political movement. Indigenismo was mainly manifested as guardianship which had the task to assimilate indigenous peoples rather then to establish institutions of welfare. The way this affected the indigenous populations was through the expropriation (or privatization) of the land which indigenous peoples traditionally considered public, thus routing the traditional modes of production and seriously endangering the very existence of many. The massive violation of human rights (Speed and Collier, 2000), cultural assimilation, the constant marginalization and the absence of political recognition were simultaneously taking place, not leaving much room for hope.

The effects of the economic reforms in Chiapas brought by modernization, from the perspective of macropolitics are an assertion for an obvious economic boom. Expressed by numbers, Chiapas today generates a huge portion of the hydroelectric energy in Mexico, contributes with one fifth in Mexico’s total production of crude oil and almost with one half of the natural gas. The abundance of resources and the opening of the market was also an open invitation for mega corporations like Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Ford Motor Company and Bayer to come and exploit both the resources and cheap labor force.

In terms of micropolitics, this meant disaster. The social situation was deeply affected by the economic developments along with government’s assimilation and marginalization policies: Chiapas in the last decades has had the biggest gap between the rich and the poor in all of Mexico, of which mostly affected are the indigenous people – their average income is just one-third of the average income of non-indigenous compatriots. The indigenous populated areas suffer from deprivation, malnutrition, extreme infant mortality rate, the highest illiteracy rate in Mexico, which is all correlated with the lack of infrastructure and the perpetuation of the disastrous living conditions. So, when it is said that Zapatistas strive to move beyond the politics of modernity, it means that they are engaged into seeking solutions not just for overcoming the described situation, but for eliminating the causes of this process, so it will not have the chance to repeat itself in Mexico nor anywhere else.

Speaking of the notion of moving beyond the modernity of the previous manifestation of resistance, the step forward is quite obvious. The fact that a guerilla movement claims that having no desire nor capacity to impose its own program, and the fact that it rose not to establish “the triumph of single party, organization, or alliance of organizations” but to open up “a democratic space, where the confrontation between diverse political points of view can be resolved”, breaking the continuity with all previous dogmatic and macho-istic Latin American resistance movements, was a reason for Ana Carrigan to state that “these masked descendants of the ancient Mayan culture had produced the first postmodern revolution” (Carrigan, 2001). As it will be discussed in the next section, much of the ontological load of Zapatistismo is postmodern, and the organization and practice, as well as the networking with solidarity organization all around the world, are aspects of the Zapatista revolution that are not innovation just in terms of Latin American revolutions, but they are unprecedented in any other situation ever as well.

To summarize here – notions of both postmodernism and revolution, or “postmodern revolution”, may seem rather vague and complicated, and raise legitimate questions about hyperbolization or overemphasization of particular aspects. Nonetheless, the term postmodern in the case of Zapatismo implies more substantial features than the sole notion of “moving beyond modernity”. In the following part of the essay, postmodernism is used to describe the “step forward” in terms of acknowledging the limitations and supposedly fallacies within a given concept and the effort to transcend them. The postmodern revolutionaries in Chiapas had put much effort into deconstructing some of the obvious deficiencies of the idea of revolution which had previously caused not just shortcomings of many revolutions worldwide and aroused stronger antagonism in public deliberation as well. In accord with the initial aim of this paper – it is argued that they have succeeded in it.

Understanding Postmodern Revolution: The Innovation

The newness of the revolution in Chiapas is multi-faceted. As argued above, what in the first place makes it postmodern is that it is a revolution moving beyond modernity, and against the offsprings of modernization.

Nevertheless, one of the first indicators of questioning (the very basics of postmodernism in general (Rosenau, 1992) ) is its non-conventionality in terms of the revolution-ness itself – “Asking we walk” is their leitmotiv. It has been already examined how Zapatistas have changed the understanding of power. Indeed, Zapatismo has been central for the development of the theory of changing the world without taking power, developed by the scholar John Holloway (2000).

This might be the basic, but certainly not the only new aspect of an old concept. A general text of compromise between mutually conflicting or even exclusive stances and practices can be identified when examining the Movement’s pastiche, rather unique in many respects, and many of the innovations are providing and proving that flexibility and questioning are important traits of the Zapatista Revolution.

Platform of Illusions and Disillusionment

The Zapatista Revolution is not itself another single-minded revolt focused on retaking land and expelling the exploiters (Burbach, 1994). The text of the Communiques and the Declarations and the other documents released by the EZLN, suggests that actually they are running on a complex set of ideas that is not preceded in any previous similar situation. It is an objection on standard all-encompassing political ideologies and at the same time does more of a deconstruction than preaching. Generally, EZLN in the realm of ideas flirts with many, especially contrarian-defined and leftist ideologies causing allegations for militant Marxistm (Clark, 1994), but also embraces, for example rather sharp and bounded, I would dare to say perrenialist reading of ethnicity, which might be understood as a nationalist principle. The issue of Zapatistas and nationalism especially has emerged after the proliferation of the Sixth Declaration of Lancadon Jungle. Some of the solidarity groups recently have had remarks that Zapatistas stand for “nationalism, a view that politics has been corrupted and needs reform, the call for major legislative change through the state”.

It is especially critical in terms of understanding power, since their “leftist” premises demonize power, while “nationalism” in general is nothing but power-oriented impulse, going back to the definition of nationalism as principle standing for merging of the cultural with the politcal unit. Yet, it can be understood as a coalition between the utopian “vision” and the primordial “memories”, as part of the deconstruction of the idea of lineal time, bridging between the future and the past.

Another notable contradiction can be triggered in terms of Zapatistas being “militant pacifists”. Symbolically, this is seen from the title of the collected writings of Marcos: “Words are our weapons” (2001). However, Zapatistas stand against any type of war and violence as political means – in fact, they stand for quite the opposite, stressing the value of peace and importance of dialogue, significantly proven with the announcement of the Other Campaign. Therefore, some authors even classify the Zapatista revolution as a non-violent revolution (Goldman, 2007). However, for a movement that endorses disobedience and non-violence, it is quite dissonant to act in an armed insurgency. The Uprising on the New Year’s day in 1994 was conveyed in a “traditionally” violent manner, and what is also important, the main agent of the revolution is a paramilitary guerilla formation, the Army (EZLN).

This is being exculpated itself most often with the argument of pragmatism and the need of self-defense. Actually, it is true that in Chiapas there had been an increased military presence, and later, it resulted in several massacres against Zapatistas and their supporters. Still, the key point is that regardless of the unwanted exceptions and the see-saw of military actions, a Zapatista would gladly advocate peaceful and legitimate outcome of a societal conflict rather than use of force. Yet, the argument of the rightness of violence against contestation the monopoly of violence can also be used here.

Another point where Zapatistas are extra-ordinary is in their relation to the State and sovereignty. Acting as a national-liberation movement and placing self-determination as their top political goal, the Zapatistas in no case can be accounted on as secessionists, nor as anti-statist. They always wave Mexican flags and endorse the Federation. Furthermore, they legitimate themselves with the Mexican constitution, acting even as revisionists or constitutionalists, or if we conduct a theoretical maneuver – conservatives? By referring to the Federation, they do not limit their ideas to the territory in which their actions took place. Despite being concentrated in the highlands and the jungle in Chiapas, their revolution is intended to be a federal one, covering all of Mexico, and as stated above, they constantly relate it to the global anti-corporate resistance. Yet, the State in Zapatistas’ discourse has just a symbolical meaning – unlike other modern movements (for instance, revolutionary anarchism), they do not have the urge to destroy the State since it would mean creating dissatisfaction among State supporters – as said before, they want to marginalize its role in their lives.

Another notion on the global thinking of the local activists from Chiapas can be seen in their criticism of the open market and the economic reforms cunducted by the government. The negative sentiments concerning pivate ownership, mass-production, selective subventions, the liberalization of the market, suggest that Zapatistas are anti-neoliberal and essentially alterglobalist. However, the alterglobalism of Zapatistas is not just economically determined. June Nash (2001), in her much respected anthropological analysis of the Zapatista Movement, pays attention to the incorporation of Mayan philosophy premises as an important source of Zapatismo’s alterglobalization:

The moral premises animating the Zapatista uprising are based on Mayan people’s reaction to what are taken to be inherent characterizations of globalization. These characteristics [...] are: (1) “deterritorialization,” or the pressure to migrate because of land seizure, pollution, or the search for wage work required because of the loss of subsistence resources; (2) fragmentation of social relations, often promoted by divisive state policies or the commoditization of social exchange; and (3) “deculturation,” or the loss of the symbolic and material reference points to cultural identity.

Here, there can be traced a link towards the moral background of the criticism of the prevailing order. Nash (2001) points that no less important are the Movement’s emphasis on human dignity and moral values, especially concerning the importance of women rights and the role of the women in the movement as being “the central actors in the emergent social movements of indigenous peoples”.

Ana Carrigan (2001), as already seen, stresses the “break with macho-ism” as one of the most significant postmodern features of Zapatista revolution.

It is not just the awareness and proclamation of gender equality and pro-feminism of Zapatistas. It is more of an approach to all of the matters, rooted in two narratives. First, it is the land, the earth, being the mother in Indian wisdom. The second is the feminine sensibility in Marcusean sense, that is characteristic for the Zapatista Movement. The result is that, many of the commanders and members of the decision-making bodies (sometimes more than half) are Zapatista Women. The EZLN has as well issued Women’s Revolutionary Law, and has constantly been supporting the global women’s struggle. That gained them the support of many feminist activists throughout the world (Rojas, 1994). In fact, Zapatistas have proven such a discourse, that seems too advanced even for what the mainstream considers emancipation – it is not about getting rights, it is about being equal no matter the gender.

The role of dignity and the gender perspective are more important than any other notion on power in terms of the redefinition of power. Dignity, being central keyword in primary sources written by Zapatistas, is also the keyword in the philosophy of Holloway: the Zapatistas have raised the stakes of revolution putting the dignity as a cornerstone of their revolution, since the previous revolutions have fallen because they were aiming too low – just to a change of the political system (Holloway, 2000). With the dignity being central, this political instrumentalism of revolution becomes obsolete. Movement that uses the revolution as a means to achieve a political change, uses the human beings that support the revolution as political means as well. With the priority given to human dignity, a revolution is prevented to “eat its children”. The notion of dignity and especially the mutual recognition of dignity, is central to the poststructural aspects of Zapatista revolution. In addition to the reconsideration of power, what is also evidently close especially to poststructural anarchism is the importance of micropolitics – the focus on the individual and the narrowest social community and the way it is linked with the wider contexts. The Zapatistas embrace rhizomatic point of view, with strong emphasis on mutualism and context.

The Zapatista emphasis on dignity and gender equality, besides the relation to power (many postmodernists see the gender as manifestation of power), also implies high inclusive and representatory standards and political matureness and capacity, much more than one could suppose that a “guerilla army” could proclaim. Likewise, Zapatistas’ political capacity is reflected in the way they formulate their demands for indigenous self-determination. Besides the foundation of the demands on the Mexican constitution, Zapatistas still appreciate very much the consensus as a mean of achieving the much hoped-for self-determination. They have not just been engaged with negotiations with the central government; they even insist that only negotiated resolution can be the legitimate one (Aubry, 2003). That had earned them the wrongful attribution of the phrase “armed reformists” (Harvey, 1998).

Mutual consensus and the avoidance of majoritarian outvoting are characteristic for the EZLN structure as well. Consensual decision making actually transcends even standard “liberal” democracy, in terms of fairness and equal representation.

The biggest remark on consensual modes of decision making in general, is that it has proven less effective. Nonetheless, unlike other examples, the consensus functions perfectly in the EZLN’s organization because it is associated with the bottom-up internal organizations. It is first reached on the ground level, and then transmitted through the other bodies of the organization. Lynn Stephen (2002) outlines the rather decentralized organization of the movement, which is composed of several levels of committees starting from the smallest territorial units, based on equal representation, functioning on the principles of consensual decision-making.

Another notable characteristic of the movement is the way it is represented by and in its leadership. The emergence of Subcomandante Marcos can be in a way perceived as a personification of the Movement (Klein, 2001). He is the spokesperson and the representative and the informal leader of the Zapatistas. It is believed that he is a nonindigenous intellectual that was charmed by the indigenous, a philosopher that brought much to and learnt much of the indigenous populated areas in the highlands and near the jungle.

Yet Marcos plays a crucial role for the EZLN only in terms of representation. In the organizational hierarchy, on the other hand, Marcos has to participate and obey the consensus of the General Command of the EZLN (Stephen, 2002). This notion is also in a way related to the bottom-up structure of the movement and the way it treats the personality: in fact, there is no room for individual authority among Zapatistas. The world is a corrupt place according to them, and too much focus on individuality can be a threat to the integrity of the whole. Hence they all wear ski masks or scarves, not in order to look scary nor to hide from authorities, but rather to simulate uniformity and avoid concentration of power of individuals-in terms of not getting too close with outsiders. If a Zapatista can be recognized and approached by outsiders, that can lead to corruption or tension, which could affect the equality among members, something can then obstruct the bottom-up consensual decision making process.

“The masks are a symbol not only of anonymity, but also egalitarianism. The masks are very symbolic to the Zapatistas. Despite the reality that the Zapatistas took over all the major cities in the highlands of Chiapas on Jan 1, 1994, this was not their first choice – culturally they feel that dialogue, not violence is the best way to find solutions. At that time, they say, they gave up “the word” (or their voices) so that they could be heard and, by wearing masks, they give up their faces in order to be seen. “With my mask, I’m a Zapatista in a struggle for dignity and justice,” replied the masked man to whom this question was posed. “Without my mask, I’m just another damn Indian!” (FAQ about Zapatismo)

At this point, the poststructuralism in Zapatista movement can be clearly seen. It is not just the Movement base conceptualized on bottom-up principles, but its focus on social transformation from below as well (Day, 2005). Their poststructuralism is also reflected in relation to the movements of wider scope, namely the anti-corporate global resistance and alterglobalist movement. As Todd May, a theoretician on post-structuralist anarchism argues there are many similarities between post-structural politics and anti-globalization movements since they share elements as “irreducible struggles, local politics and alliances, an ethical orientation, a resistance to essentialist thinking”.

The Zapatista Movement and the Anti-corporate Global Resistance

Jeffrey Juris (2008), in an effort to map the ethnography of the anti-corporate global movement, finds the “roots of anti-corporate globalization activism” in several forms of collective action: grassroots urban, peasant and indigenous movement in the Global South; anti-corporate activism; non-governmental organizations and transnational advocacy networks; anarchist-inspired direct action and particularly the Zapatistas. According to him, the contribution of Zapatistas to the anti-corporate global resistance was “[i]nspiration, vision of global solidarity, new political language and model of organization, global networks and gatherings” (Juris, 2008).

The appeal of Zapatistas, and the inspiration they bring to the global resistance partially is laying in the poeticism and passion being the very cornerstones of the Movement. It is Zapatistas’ and their Subcomandante’s paralogism making their cause so seductive: it is not just what Zapatistas do and say, but as well how they do and say it. It is their power of projection: combining the Mayan wisdom, radical leftist and alterglobal discourses and the sophisticated use of iconography and motives from the Mexican and Cuban Revolution, along with some of the “cool” features of ’68, Zapatistas have successfully built up their image of 21st century proto-revolutionaries (Debray, 1996).

The inspirational component is much related with Zapatistas’ impact in raising the awareness for and the importance of the transnational solidarity. The vision of “global, groundless” solidarity (Day, 2005) of the Zapatistas is probably best expressed in the famous quotation of Subcomandante Marcos’:

[...] Marcos is gay in San Francisco, a black in South Africa, Asian in Europe, a Chicano in San Isidro, an anarchist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, an indigenous person in the streets of San Cristóbal, a gang member in Neza, a rocker on campus, a Jew in Germany, an ombudsman in the Department of Defense, a feminist in a political party, a communist in the post-Cold War period, a prisoner in Cintalapa, a pacifist in Bosnia, a Mapuche in the Andes, a teacher in the National Confederation of Education Workers, an artist without a gallery or a portfolio, a housewife in any neighborhood in any city in any part of Mexico of a Saturday night, a guerrilla in Mexico at the end of the twentieth century, a striker at the CTM, a sexist in the feminist movement, a woman alone in a Metro station at 10 p.m., a retired person standing around in the zócalo (town square), a peasant without land, an underground editor, an unemployed worker, a doctor with no office, a non-conformist student, a dissident against neoliberalism, a writer without books or readers and a Zapatista in the Mexican southeast. In other words, Marcos is a human being in this world. Marcos is every untolerated, oppressed, exploited minority that is resisting and saying ‘Enough!’[...].

Reading Marcos’ and other Zapatistas’ works could provide a good insight of what Juris means when saying “political language” of the Zapatista revolution. It is a poetical and passionate expression that they use, much more lively than ordinary political discourse. It is also a language of socialism, dissimilar than any the one of the Marxists, anarchists, or the New Left. Its contribution to the general progress of the anti-corporate globalization movement is much linked with the inspirational aspect previously mentioned (Higgins, 2005). Rebels across the world practically adopted and spread the Zapatistas’ discourse of questioning and consultation, inclusiveness and uncertainty, solidarity and networking.

Especially in terms of networking, the impact of Zapatistas resembles a major innovation. They have proven that modes of horizontal organization can be as sustainable as the traditional hierarchal structures. Engaging into an extended analytical effort, Thomas Olesen (2005) has “mapped the invisible continent” of transnational Zapatista solidarity network as a complex multi-layered structure. According to Olesen, it can be sketched as a simultaneous three-level network: on the micro-level compounded by EZLN and the supporting social movement organization; on the meso-level it is the transnational Zapatista solidarity network and the informal transnational movement network; and on the macro level, it is the transnational protest network and the transnational fields of synergy (Olesen, 2005). The notion of the interrelations between the narrowest local units with the global “synergy” clearly leads to the idea of deconstructing the solid, even austere structures from the past, and establishing a new fluid, fluctuating form of organization based around the lowest common denominator – the struggle against corporate globalization.

The alterglobalist, or anti-corporate globalist, movement had its peak in 1999. The famous “Battle of Seattle”, during the first WTO summit on U.S. soil was a manifestation of major importance in that respect. Just to get the idea – in the theory of the global resistance movement, all the further developments are linked to “the Seattle effect”. It was not just the masses of people that mattered, or the amount of damage done. What mattered was the new conception of the movement, the new discourse of solidarity and the new type of ultimately decentralized organization, which was the direct effect of the influence of the Zapatistas in the movement. More important than the symbols of EZLN, or the repetition of Marcos’ words, was how one day millions of people worldwide became “Zapatistas”: the Zapatista Uprising actually culminated with the protests in Seattle (Juris, 2008).

Concluding remarks: Re-Thinking Revolution

Nine years have passed since the Seattle protests and almost fifteen from the Uprising, and many things have changed since then. Recent reports from Chiapas say that Zapatistas are about to face serious golghota against Mexican government (Cruz, 2008). The Mexican government under Calderon has serious motives to enclose the question of Chiapas and the future of the Movement remains to be uncertain.

However, calmly facing uncertainty has been one of the most important lessons learned from Chiapas. The future of Zapatistas has been uncertain since day one of the Uprising, to the present, and they have lived with that. What Zapatistas have proven is that their political change is not imagined as a means to an end, denying the instrumental reading of revolution. Zapatista revolution is not about achieving at all, it is a way of life of a community – or as they poetically say – “we walk, we do not run, because we are going far” (Halloway, 2000).

What should anyone interested in studying or pursuing revolution learn from Chiapas is that revolution from 1994 is not about power anymore. The Zapatista revolution goes back to the idea of contestation of authority and power; but does not seek way to overthrow or replace it. The struggle in Mexico is for alternative modes of social organization and redistribution of power. The way it can be achieved in the political realm, is autonomy, not just from the State, but from the power as such.

The assumption that there exists a wide gap between postmodernist deconstruction of Truth and the truth-barring phenomena of revolution is not striking as it seems. That gap is bridged by the idea of human dignity. Human dignity in situations where certain populations have constantly been marginalized and exploited acts as most direct deconstruction of the collective imposed Truth. At the same time, dignity is the ultimate Truth for every single human being. Furthermore, it is derived from the ancient past of wisdom and directly projected as a path for the future, thus deconstructing the chronological perception of time. Human dignity is not affected nor by physical space as well – that is why a revolution based on dignity intends to be global by definition.

The Zapatista revolution aims higher than any previous revolution indeed. It is a revolution that primarily changes the understanding of society. It is a revolution that dismantles illusions – a revolution of questions. I conclude here with the words of Subcomandante Marcos, written down by the one-time comrade of Che Guevara, Regis Debray (1996), during his visit to Chiapas:
“‘We do not want a revolution imposed from the top: it always turns against itself. We are not a vanguard. We are not here to close things down but to start renew our efforts’, he repeated to me in the camp. ‘Our aim: to give voice to civil society, everywhere, under all its forms, in all its fronts. We are neither the only ones nor the best ones. We do not have the truth or the answer to everything. Provided we raise good questions, that is enough for us . . .’”.

Asking they walk. It is our turn to listen to their questions.

Bibliography

Aubry, Andres. “Autonomy in the San Andres Accords: Expressions and Fulfillment of a New Federal Pact”. In Mayan Lives Mayan Utopias : The Indigenous Peoples of Chiapas and the Zapatista Rebellion, edited by Jan Rus, Rosalva A. Castillo and Shannan L. Mattiace. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, Incorporated, 2003, 219-243.

Burbach, Roger, “Roots of the Postmodern Rebellion in Chiapas”, New Left Review, I/205, 1994, 113-123

Cal y Mayor, Aracely Burguete , “The de Facto Autonomous Process: New Jurisdictions and Parallel Governments in Rebellion”. In Mayan Lives Mayan Utopias : The Indigenous Peoples of Chiapas and the Zapatista Rebellion, edited by Jan Rus, Rosalva A. Castillo and Shannan L. Mattiace. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, Incorporated, 2003, 191-219.

Carrigan, Ana, “Chiapas: The First Postmodern Revolution”, Afterword to Our Word is Our Weapon: Subcomandante Marcos, Selected Writings, ed. Juana Ponce de Leon (London: Seven Stories Press, 2001), 895-958

Cruz, Orion, “The Future of Mexico’s EZLN”, Council on Hemispheric Affairs. pub. 20 Nov. 2008

Day, Richard J.F., Gramsci is Dead: Anarchist Currents in the Newest Social Movements, London: Pluto Press, 2005

Debray, Regis, “A guerilla with a difference”, New Left Review, I/218, 1996, 128-137

Esteva, Gustavo. “The Meaning and Scope of the Struggle for Autonomy”. In Mayan Lives Mayan Utopias : The Indigenous Peoples of Chiapas and the Zapatista Rebellion, edited by Jan Rus. Ed. Rosalva A. Castillo and Shannan L. Mattiace. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, Incorporated, 2003, 243-271

Foran, John, Theorizing Revolutions, London: Routledge, 1997

Goldman, Eric, “Why the Beatles Got Revolution Right: An analysis of the effectiveness of nonviolent action in Latin America”, working paper, 2007

Gonzales, Mike, “The Zapatistas: the challenges of revolution in a new millennium”, International Socialism Journal, vol 89, 2000

Holloway, John, “Zapatismo and the Social Sciences”, talk presented to the congress of SCOLAS (Southwest Council of Latin American Studies) in Puebla in March 2000

Harvey, Neil, The Chiapas Rebellion: The Struggle for Land and Democracy, Durham: Duke University Press, 1998

Higgins, Nick, “Lessons from the Indigenous: Zapatista poetics and a cultural humanism for the twenty-first century”. In Critical Theories, International Relations and the ‘Anti-Globalisation Movement’: The politics of global resistance, edited by Catherine Eschle and Bice Maiguashca, London: Routledge, 2005, 87-103

Juris, Jefrey S., Networking Futures, Draham: Duke University Press, 2008

Klein, Naomi, “The Unknown Icon”, The Guardian, 03.03.2001

Nash, June C., Mayan Visions: The Quest for Autonomy in an Age of Globalization, New York: Routledge, 2001

Olesen, Thomas, International Zapatismo: The Construction of Solidarity in the Age of Globalization. London: Zed Books, 2005

Rojas, Rosa (ed), Chiapas, And the Women?., Mexico: Centro de Investigacion y Capacitacion de la Mujer, 1994

Rosenau, Pauline Marie, Post-modernism and the Social Sciences, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992

Scott, David Clark, “Mexican Rebels Reject Talks, Vow Fight to Death for Socialism,” Christian Science Monitor 5 Jan. 1994

Speed, Shannon and Jane Fishburne Collier “Limiting Indigenous Autonomy in Chiapas, Mexico: The State Government’s Use of Human Rights”, Human Rights Quarterly, 22/4, 2000, 877-905

Stavenhagen, Rodolfo, “Towards the Right of Autonomy in Mexico”, Indigenous Autonomy in Mexico, Ed. Aracely Burguette Cal Y Mayor. New York: Transaction, 2002, 10-23

Stephen, Lynn, Zapata Lives!: Histories and Cultural Politics in Southern Mexico, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002

Tilly, Charles, From Mobilization to Revolution, Reading: Addison – Wesley, 1978

Tresierra, Julio C. “Mexico: “Indigenous Peoples and the nation-state””. In Indigenous Peoples and Democracy in Latin America, edited by Donna Lee Van Cott, New York: St. Martin’s Press in association with the Inter-American Dialogue, 1994, 187-210