you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Minor tidbit, the Zapatistas directly and explicitly reject the label "anarchist," they see their own movement as organic and self-driven more than anything. Not saying you can't use them as an example of anarchist-adjacent structures, but they quite clearly dislike the term being applied to themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    That's true. It's also worth noting that since they are states that hold power, they obviously all have some distance from anarchism, the ideology against power and states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I mean, that also applies to the Spanish anarchists as well, who employed labor camps and had some degree of hierarchical structure. At the end of the day, anarchists do have to make compromises with what authority they consider valid and what they don't. I'd say the Spanish anarchists had their own "state" as well, and this applies to all anarchism in historical example. There's a difference between the idealized, perfect anarchism, and the anarchism forced to reconcile the need for some hierarchy, especially when defending itself from outside forces.

    Ultimately, while they reject the label of anarchist, the Zapatistas do have a fairly horizontalist approach, which is why I said they can be considered when discussing anarchist-adjacent structures, their merits, and any problems they may run into.

  • source
  • parent