They enforce the authority of the people against institutional power, using a method (consensus-making) that ensures that it’s truly reflective of the will of the people (and not what a group of faux intellectuals think is the will of the people) and that it cannot be divorced from that will.
So? They institutionally dominated the region kicking out the cartels, US and Mexican government. They are authoritarian just as every form of governance is. Who the “authoritarianism” affects is a separate question.
I think you’re on the right train of thought but missing a key aspect. I’m with MLs that without some sort of organized counter-authority, existing power structures will overrun the revolutionary forces. But that authority needs to be fully accountable to the people it serves, otherwise it will become disembodied and “institutionalized” in the more specific sense, leading to a power structure that justifies its own existence instead of deriving the justification through the people. MLs, to me, are missing this power analysis. They seem to try to argue that an authoritarian communist-party-run government has this accountability to the people by the fact that…they serve the people? That’s not enough. You need to organize your revolution around accountability, around the idea that institutional power must always be justified by the will of the people and not the other way around. The Zapatistas understood this, which is why they built their governance around consensus-building and have since actively removed institutional power as it no longer served the people.
What does this have to do with anything? None of this word salad even approaches the point we were talking about. The Zapatista movement is “authoritarian” just like every governing body that has been or is (who they serve is irrelevant to being or not being “authoritarian”). Authoritarian is a useless buzzword used mostly by liberals to smear movements and countries they don’t like.
The Zapatista territories in Chiapas come to mind.
They enforce/enforced their authority often violently against the Mexican government, cartels, and the US.
Authoritarian is a useless buzzword for liberals to paint countries/movements they don’t like as immoral.
They enforce the authority of the people against institutional power, using a method (consensus-making) that ensures that it’s truly reflective of the will of the people (and not what a group of faux intellectuals think is the will of the people) and that it cannot be divorced from that will.
So? They institutionally dominated the region kicking out the cartels, US and Mexican government. They are authoritarian just as every form of governance is. Who the “authoritarianism” affects is a separate question.
On Authority
Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means.
I think you’re on the right train of thought but missing a key aspect. I’m with MLs that without some sort of organized counter-authority, existing power structures will overrun the revolutionary forces. But that authority needs to be fully accountable to the people it serves, otherwise it will become disembodied and “institutionalized” in the more specific sense, leading to a power structure that justifies its own existence instead of deriving the justification through the people. MLs, to me, are missing this power analysis. They seem to try to argue that an authoritarian communist-party-run government has this accountability to the people by the fact that…they serve the people? That’s not enough. You need to organize your revolution around accountability, around the idea that institutional power must always be justified by the will of the people and not the other way around. The Zapatistas understood this, which is why they built their governance around consensus-building and have since actively removed institutional power as it no longer served the people.
What does this have to do with anything? None of this word salad even approaches the point we were talking about. The Zapatista movement is “authoritarian” just like every governing body that has been or is (who they serve is irrelevant to being or not being “authoritarian”). Authoritarian is a useless buzzword used mostly by liberals to smear movements and countries they don’t like.
Clearly we’re not getting anywhere. Read some anarchist theory if you want to understand this “word salad” 💕
I understand what you’re saying it’s just not relevant.
Challenging and limiting institutional power is not relevant to conversations about avoiding authoritarianism?
What makes them different?
See my other reply