Rate this book

Zapatistit Ja Tuplajuulaiset (2008)

by Staughton Lynd(Favorite Author)

3.89 of 5 Votes: 2

languge

English

genre

History & Biography

publisher

Into Kustannus

review 1: A look at unionism, Marxism/anarchism and history. The book is arranged as a "conversation," which is really just a device for setting up the theme for Lynd's essays on various issues. The book does not go into a lot of detail, but it does span an enormous part of history of the Left.I wasn't blown away with it, and sometimes Lynd's self-congratulatory attitude is a little noisome. In fact, the book is far more an autobiography of himself than it is about the IWW or the Zapatistas.
review 2: Wobblies and Zapatistas In this book, there is a disappointing lack of discussion about both Wobblies and Zapatistas. The title seems to be drawn simply from two topics that come up once in a while throughout the “correspondence” between Lynd and Grubacic. While Lynd ha... mores an expansive memory, knowledge base, and ability to recall facts, details, events, people, he either lacks or does not articulate here any clear concrete ideas about the best trajectory for the contemporary revolutionary movement. The premise of the book is to synthesize Marxist and anarchist ideas and actions, and while he points out the strengths and weaknesses of both, he tends to only point out how they are not compatible, or at least have not been in the past, and not point out how they can become compatible or work together. Basically he thinks that anarchism is the superior framework because it does not try to assume state power. He considers Zapatistas exemplary of this because they live in a radical society without trying to gain state power. But he thinks that the majority of anarchist lack a coherent economic theory to oppose capitalism and to essentially continue an ongoing fight. He argues that anarchists move from action to action without a cohesive campaign because of this lack of economic theory, and believes they should adopt Marxist economic theory. But he completely rejects Marxism's obsession with taking over the state. “The revolution to which we aspire need not and should not seek state power. Rather, its project should be to nurture an horizontal network of self-governing institutions down below to which whoever holds state power will learn they have to be obedient and accountable” (50). He hates hierarchy in the movement whether it be socialists, unionized, etc. Personally I think we should resist and fight on all fronts – attempt to take state power, to form alternative's to state power, anything and everything we can do to escape the capitalist system. Lynd holds odd ideas about class and people's roll in the movement. He does not clearly define either the “lower class” who anarchists are supposed to be helping in the their struggles, nor the “upper class” who is oppressing everyone. These lines are blurring as capitalism grows more complex. He does identify a class of “footloose students and intellectuals” that are not “preoccupied with economic survival,” (47) to which I admit I am a part. Though I am not in academia or independently wealthy, I now I have enough personal capital that I can read this book and write this review and not worry that I will be able to make enough money to get by when I put my mind to it. Lynd argues that people like me should cultivate useful skills and put ourselves at the service of the lower classes. He, for example, became a lawyer. His ideas of “useful skills” seem a bit academic, however. In a real anarchist revolution that is not trying to take over the state, is a law degree or the ability to build houses more important? His relationship to academia is also unclear. He does not think professors should be obsessed with being professors. He thinks highly educated people should be on the front lines, fighting for the lower classes, and that is where they will be (and where they have been) to write their best work. I agree with this, especially in terms of writing a Gorilla History. I, for one, do not want the next history of the world – one that will hopefully be about workers struggles to oppose the oppressive force of capitalism until they finally threw it off by adopting indigenous lifestyles and abandoning Western civilization, one that breaks down the meta-narratives of rich, white men progressing the world and doing good for everyone, but putting them in their place as slave holders, rapists, and land thiefs – to be written by an academic in an arm chair, or anyone who was not on the front lines confronting Capitalism. That would be a continuation of the division of labor. The new artists/writer/historian cannot be a passive observer. So I like most of his ideas about writing a gorilla history. His biggest shortcoming in my mind, is not distinguishing, or not stating, the difference between revolutions that come from outside the capitalist system, and those that do not. He seems to think that coal miners, etc (working class within the capitalist system) need academics who can view their situation from the outside, and present it to the dominant culture with law degrees, history degrees, etc, but acknowledges that the Zapatistas did not need any of this. In my mind this is because the Zapatistas are an indigenous people, still in touch with their traditional culture, which is a complete, viable alternative to capitalism. They do not need Marxist philosophy from the educated classes, etc. They invited Marxists and anarchist to come join them to garner international attention and support, and it worked. This is a great example of how anti-capitalist work could move forward in America. Indigenous cultures have viable alternatives to the capitalists system, support them in their struggle to take back their land (1/3 of the land base of the continental United States under treaties that are still on the books), and establish societies to which all are invited. The book ends with a discussion of why he is a pacifist. He condemns three of his categories of violence (toward the state, toward individuals, toward oneself) but then glorifies one man who burnt himself alive in front of the secretary of defense during the Vietnam war, and gives him more credit for ending the war than I have ever heard about. Gorilla history? A couple other interesting points he made in passing: “Violence was therapeutic for the oppressed” (37). I definitely see this in the working class within capitalists societies and indigenous cultures on reservations, in the form of fighting and domestic abuse. Physical violence is almost a necessary outlet for the disenfranchised. But I believe this violence against one another could be replaced, and would be far more healthy, if it were directed against the state, capitalism, corporations etc. And I do think, from my own experiences, that that trade-off works, that attending rallies and resisting the system replaces and extinguishes the urge to be violent with another frustrated, disenfranchised individual. “An optimist is a person who brings his lunch to work” (38). “Trade unions did not prefigure another world, but were institutions that ameliorated capitalist excesses and thus stabilized capitalism” (49). By ameliorate I think he literally means adopt, grow, expand – i.e. they indulged in the excesses of capitalism. And this is a point that all elements of the movement should take to heart. If any action, idea, or individual can be eschewed as only able to exist because of the capitalist system against which it is fighting, it loses all its radical capability. Activist who have the money and leisure time to fly all over the world attending rallies come to mind. Page 209: I love the parable of a tortured radical, who when his revolutionaries gain power, captures the man who tortured him and says, “Now I will have my revenge. Now I will set you free.” I love parables. “After passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, Nothern abolitionists began to advocate and use violence to protect fugitive slaves. Frederick Douglas...split with Garrison and declared that any means necessary to end slavery were justified” (235). This seems like a strong point for the violence Lynd denounces. The Fugitive Slave Act always seemed unconscionable to me. How could people who saw the evil of slavery allow slave owners to lay hands on slaves without fighting for them. less

Download links for: Zapatistit ja tuplajuulaiset

Advertising