• the rizzler@lemmygrad.ml
    3·
    10 days ago

    in that case, can i ask about the zapatistas? specifically, have they been an effective anti-imperialist force or are they going to end up like rojava?

    • rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml
      8·
      10 days ago

      From my personal point of view, they are similar to rojava without the US support(context -> https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6488415). They do make statements supporting Cuba but they sometimes invite USAID funded liberals that have voiced views against Nicaragua and Venezuela. Regardless of their views, they serve as a force that stops internal plunder within Chiapas.

      • the rizzler@lemmygrad.ml
        2·
        9 days ago

        but surely the US support would have been the central defining factor? meaning, even if they are a bit libbed up, they aren’t an extension of the empire in the way rojava is? that seems like what you’re getting at with the last sentence; am i right?

        • rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml
          3·
          9 days ago

          No, they are not an extension of the US. Actually, they are in direct opposition to US backed companies(agrobusinesses) in the region that want to plunder the natural resources there.

          In Mexico, the ones that are actively supported by the US and serve as the “Freikorp” of capitalists are the narcos/drug traffickers. As evidence, you can see this quote from a lawyer of a union:

          The intervention of organized crime groups in the country’s mining sector “has become a cancer promoted by foreign capital, especially by Canadian and American companies,” said Óscar Alzaga Sánchez, lawyer for the National Mining Union, which is chaired by legislator Napoleón Gómez Urrutia.

          This is what I was trying to tell you by saying they stop internal plunder. This means that they are opposing those groups(promoted by national and US capitalists) to destroy the region.