So apparently the Zapatista's are running a women in the Mexican elections.
this is a huge step away from Foco theory and what they originally used to represent.
can someone sum up to me the differences ideologically between the zapatistas when they first formed and now? hows the group different, did they used to be hardcore?
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
twitter.com
Initially in indigenous culture (this is at least what I have read about it in Zapatista theory) men were often the head honchos of the house, mostly no thanks to western capitalism.
“Indigenous women’s entry into the money economy has been analyzed as making their domestic and subsistence work evermore dispensable to the reproduction of the labor force and thus reducing women’s power within the family. Indigenous men have been forced by the need to help provide for the family in the globalized capitalist economic system that favors paid economic labor while depending on female subordination and unpaid subsistence labor. These ideals are internalized by many workers and imported back into the communities.”
Hymn, Soneile. "Indigenous Feminism in Southern Mexico". The International Journal of Illich Studies 2.
However to say that what they "used to represent", the Zapatistas have always involved women's representatives. This isn't anything new within lib-soc groups, often giving marginalised groups their own reps.
That wasn't the Zapatistas per se, it was the Congreso Nacional Indigena (National Indigenous Congress) of which the Zapatistas are a part of.
She didn't get enough signatures to be on the ballot officially.
AFAIK they still administrate their Caracoles (sort of like autonomous regions), and will defend themselves if/when attacked by paramilitary groups or the government.
Oh great more IDpol the zapatistas seem to be getting more liberal *sigh*
gender "equality" is IDpol
Also focusing on women in government is also IDpol
You know she was a feminist right?
And what, you are assuming that because they chose a women candidate she was the beneficiary of some affirmative action or something? The only way to combat sexism and idpol together is to approach every comrade based on merits, meaning that much of the time women will be appointed to important positions.
No she wasnt
This was a long ass time ago.
Do you know what proletarian feminism is?
"sexism" is a word used to perpetuate IDpol, it doesn't exist
Sexism is idpol. Combatting idpol means the negation or socially constructed identities such as gender, race, ethnicity, etc. Which of course means demolishing prejudice based on these identities, which means being anti-sexist, anti-racist, etc. I don’t think you actually know what idpol means tbh.
That's bullshit "indigenous" cultures were explicitly patriarchies and women were slaves of their husbands. Western society brought feminism, especially American capitalists who were all protestant and thus considered women roughly equal while nonwhites (including Mexico's lower indigenous classes) to be literally animals beneath humans. This is also why so many of them are fierce and devout catholics, the catholic church being an entity that isn't explicitly feminist like most Puritan movements were/are.
Delusional notions of social justice aside though, this is just a new phase of an age old war: rural catholic communists against American (protestant) backed cosmopolitan businesses. The railroad against the donkey, the helicopter against the ranger. This is just a new phase of the long, drawn out conflict that will never end until Mexico becomes as rich as America or stops being Spanish.
Please, Mexico's civil war began over what was otherwise a peaceful election. Capitalists didn't want to share power and tried intimidating members of other parties, which they were shot for. If anything this is a practical entryist position, one which will fuck up PRI's hold on power and thus instigate a new Mexican crisis a century after the last one began in the exact same way.
men who scream idpol at literally any mention of women's liberation are rightist deviations
This is so obviously false that I can't help to not write this post. Do you just say whatever comes to mind? Indigenous people often had far more equitable societies than their European feudal and capitalist counterparts! Many lived in a state similar to the primitive communism of Marx in which food was collectively distributed. Guess what? In those societies men and women often shared the same roles some tribes were even matrilineal. Far more equitable than the Europeans for whom women were not allowed to vote, hold government jobs or divorce their husbands.
READ
A
FUCKING
BOOK
Far better than a Trotskyite.
cite something where she even mentions feminism.
Do it.
I don't think women's suffrage was inherently a feminist movement. It's only after the fact that they claim it as theirs. Feminism itself grew out of the bourgeois and liberal spheres of the time.This claim by liberals of Rosa being "feminist", when all she did was follow Marxist and socialist praxis to its logical conclusions, I've always seen as incredibly misleading.
women's suffrage was implicitly a feminist movement. Insisting that it wasn't just makes you look retarded.
Yes, for men. Women were slaves. All women were equal as slaves.
But not more equitable than AMERICANS. American frontierism was largely the same as you describe but women had even more rights and duties because a Protestant work ethic demanded they be counted as equals to their husbands, not slaves to them as was the case in indigenous and pre-enlightenment European societies. American women were allowed to do things like operate bars, walk in the front doors of saloons, work in mines (frontier/inland western ones at least), and pay taxes.
That's not to say indigenous/rural societies weren't communist though, they were and remain so. But they were incredibly sexist at the same time. It was Americans who walked in and forced them to let women have control over their finances, to be allowed to setup bank accounts, write checks and sign contracts - the basis of capitalism.
They're impossible to stomp out directly, since most of them can produce food without electricity or diesel and they know how to live off the land. They can make their own guns, assuming the one kid they sent up to America can't drive a carload of guns back. They can't be bought off since money has no use for them, as they have no places to spend it except maybe a government-owned gas station.
Women’s suffrage attracted various people of different persuasions. I think you could argue the suffragettes were, but saying everyone who was sympathetic was a feminist is a stretch.
there is a difference between feminism as a dictionary definition and as a distinct ideological movement
Cool.
Sorry about your illiteracy m8. Let me spoon-feed you a few gender equal indigenous societies.
-Apache
-Hadza, tanzanian
-Washoe
-Haudenosaunee, matrilineal
-Hopi
What do all these cultures have in common? They all distribute food communally of which women play a large role in. In cultures where women were more vital to the supply of food, they were held in higher regard. If you think that Europeans created the conditions for such you would be incorrect my dude.
Not with the Aztecs and Maya.
Women did that role too in all culture, even uppity Northeasterners with their "separate spheres" for men and women - women had control over the food and cooking. Men had control over the pocketbook and business, a distinction that indigenous societies had too as did pre-Enlightenment European societies (namely Spain).
This only changed in the American frontier due to practical necessity, and it is unsurprising that American feminism began in places like Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho. It's also a reason why American settlements were far more prosperous than Spanish or Mexican ones, as there was a much more efficient use of the workforce as women could do the exact same jobs (miner, smithy, innkeeper, bartender, accountant, legal representative) that pre-European indigenous cultures and rural Spanish society refused to let them do. A major distinction here is that women could own property and engage in business without a man, a thing both indigenous and most European cultures didn't allow. Capitalists came to realize this as a major advantage, as they could get 50% more customers by doing business with both genders.
Also all your examples (except the Tanzanians) are all American indian tribes, who were forcibly Americanized in the 1820-60s when they were forced west and contained onto reservations. They aren't Mexican nor are they fully indigenous like Oaxacans are. Notably, Oaxaco has had active communist movements since the central Mexican government stopped simply shooting them in the late 80s. Oaxaca is also the most hardcore catholic Mexican state, demonstrating the strong compatibility between indigenous and Spanish cultures but the lack of compatibility between their culture and the US-backed industrial society encroaching on them.
I don't, I think Americans did. Europeans were always sexist, Americans racist. The incompatibility between the two contributes to the culture clash Mexican society has had to deal with since they began industrializing in the latter nineteenth century.
This is exactly why buzzwords need to be eliminated. You sound like a total retard man.