I explicitly did not name the zapatistas. But you are correct there are different aspects to their movement, with the peasant communities being more horizontal, and the EZLN being more hierarchical.

Zapatismo has influences from Marxism-Leninism, but is primarily an original indigenous movement that rejects the labels of Marxism-Leninism and anarchism. They've stated that they cannot be constrained to foreign ideas, essentially.

Not entirely correct. The zapatista movement is not an anarchist movement, nor is it a marxist movement (it's a zapatista movement). But to say they « disavow » anarchism is a stretch. See also A zapatista response to « The EZLN is not anarchist »: « There are anarchists in our midst, just as there are Catholics and Communists and followers of Santeria. We are Indians in the countryside and workers in the city. We are politicians in office and homeless children on the street. We are gay and straight, male and female, wealthy and poor. What we all have in common is a love for our families and our homelands. What we all have in common is a desire to make things better for ourselves and our country. None of this can be accomplished if we are to build walls of words and abstract ideas around ourselves. »

Still, there are a lot of anarchists in Mexico, not just Chiapas. But in Chiapas, too.

That's technically correct. However, you seem to imply that repression against « communists » is not repression against « anarchists ». It definitely is. One could argue there's repression against anarchists without repression against communists (though i would say that's wrong because many of the deported/executed « leftists » under Lenin were not anarchists) but i've never heard a single make the opposite argument.