No other group has had such a catalysing influence on the new political forms and tactics espoused by the anti-globalisation movement, yet there has been too little critical analysis of the Zapatistas' politics and the relationship of western activists to their guerilla icons. Melancholic Troglodytes review Mihalis Mentinis' book Zapatistas: The Chiapas Revolt and What It Means for Radical Politics and discovers some ugly nationalist features behind the mask

This [Marcos] is grown from man to dragon.
He has wings, he’s more than a creeping thing.
– Coriolanus, V.4, William Shakespeare

Despite its hackneyed front cover, Mentinis’ Zapatistas proves to be a gem of a book. In our view, it represents the most original analysis of the Chiapas revolt currently available in the English language. Furthermore, it may even have wider implications for radical politics beyond the confines of the Zapatistas. 
  

It begins sedately enough. Chapter 1 is a non-descript summary of the Zapatista chronology. It goes through various splits and mergers, acronyms and myth-forging experiences that constitute the story of the Zapatistas thus far. Mentinis shows how ‘the EZLN [Zapatista Army for National Liberation] inherited and maintained a militaristic logic, at least until the early months of 1994’ (Mentinis, 2006, p.7). In this phase Zapatista declarations still had the authoritarian whiff of all previous Latin American guerilla groups, although already tinged with Marcos’ malicious sense of humour (‘We have taken Ocosingo. We apologise for any inconvenience but this is a revolution’ – Marcos, 1 January 1994).
   

The Zapatistas have proved themselves smarter and more durable than the one-dimensional Che Guevara. They were realistic enough to acknowledge they were no match for the encircling Mexican army and flexible enough to alter strategy. They have tried hard to prevent the militarisation of the struggle, not so much as a matter of principle but as a matter of survival (ibid, p.12). By 1995, having found their magic lamp, they pleaded with the genie of ‘civil society’ to form a movement of national liberation. This was their first wish and the wish was partially granted in the national consultations they had with a million Mexicans. But the success was only partial and soon the Zapatistas found themselves isolated again. Their second wish was for a wider consultation with ‘international civil society’ about indigenous rights and other related issues. This took place on a number of occasions and succeeded in temporarily widening their portfolio abroad. Finally, the Zapatistas asked the genie to bring them closer to student and working class Mexicans whose struggles seemed pregnant with possibilities. All three wishes exhausted, the Zapatistas were left alone again to rue their marginalisation. Soon they entered a period of ‘prolonged silence’ which they have broken only recently. 

Having set the scene Mentinis introduces the reader in chapter two to four leading perspectives on the Zapatista insurrection, namely, the Gramscian approach; the discourse of Laclau and Mouffe; academic Autonomist Marxism; and, most interesting to us, the non-academic ‘Radical Left’.

Mentinis explains how concepts from Gramsci, such as his critique of ‘civil society’, ‘passive revolution’, ‘the subaltern’ and ‘war of manoeuvres’ can clarify certain aspects of Zapatista practice. He is even gracious enough to squander a few pages on the comedy double-act that is Laclau and Mouffe. Melancholic Troglodytes do not reject discourse analysis as such. We merely point out that Laclau and Mouffe's version represents the least radical and the most compromised wing of this tendency. Considering the sheer imbecility of these two jokers, with their kindergarten  rejection of class struggle, their toe-curling desire to bring bourgeois 'liberty' and 'equality' to all, and their missionary zeal to reform democracy, it would have been advisable not to sully a perfectly decent book with their intellectual flotsam.

With academic Autonomist Marxists, Mentinis enters a more fruitful analytical terrain. Here he discusses John Holloway’s ideas about ‘dignity’, ‘alienation’ and ‘fetishisation’ as related to the Zapatistas. He also uses Lorenzano to contextualise the Zapatistas globally. Accordingly, ‘the Zapatista experience … [is perceived as] … an indivisible part of the global recomposition of labour’ (ibid, p.45). Some of these concepts prove illuminating whilst others feel cumbersome and poorly articulated.

Having gleaned what is useful from Gramscian, post-Gramscian and academic Autonomist Marxism, he then discusses the contributions of groups such as Aufheben and Wildcat. Here things get really interesting. He takes on board their more telling critique of the Zapatistas but furnishes us with a few choice counter-punches of his own. Mentinis rightly points out that these critiques, having been forged at a distance, do not sufficiently investigate the inner workings of the indigenous communities. Furthermore, they pay scant attention to ‘subjectivity’, especially the ‘revolutionary subjectivity’ formed after 1994.

The book comes into its own with chapters 3 and 4. In chapter 3 Mentinis offers a fusion of Antonio Negri and Cornelius Castoriadis. Concepts that should be familiar to fans of these two writers, ranging from project of autonomy, to constituent power and the social imaginary are invoked in order to open a space for ‘an interrogation without limits’ (ibid, p.68). The Zapatista rebellion is described as a 'constituent power', i.e., a materialisation of autonomy through democratic practice. This constituent power is supposed to promote strength (potenza) whilst destroying power (potere). Ironically Negri and Castoriadis themselves are not subjected to any critical interrogation. 'Democracy', for instance, is taken at face value and conceptual similarities between Negri and Castoriadis are treated as a cosmic conjunction. Towards the end of this chapter, the Zapatistas are contextualised within Negri’s notion of Empire. Does this aid comprehension? We think not. For Melancholic Troglodytes who have previously denounced Negri’s Empire as ‘anti-working class toilet paper’ and find a great deal in Castoriadis objectionable, Mentinis’ approach smacks of irresponsible largesse. Nevertheless, we do not wish to be too dismissive of this section of the book since some (but only some) clarification of the Zapatistas is achieved through recourse to Negri and Castoriadis.

   
  
Chapter 4 provides us with a rather more successful synthesis, this time between Badiou’s concept of the event and Debord’s notion of constructed situations. Mentinis concedes that the Zapatistas do not constitute a fully-fledged event because ‘from the beginning the rebellion seemed to lack the power to bring about a real rupture with capitalism’ (ibid, p 100). However, through their discourse (a mixture of  urban postmodernism and shamanistic pre-modernism) and the unfixing of the social imaginary, the Zapatistas have encouraged the rest of the anti-capitalist movement to construct situations ‘which provide the terrain for new behaviours to emerge’ (ibid, p 107). So the Zapatistas possess attributes of both the event and the constructed situation. They are in Mentinis’ words an ‘evental situation preparing the terrain for a future event’ (ibid, p.115).
   
Since Mentinis is aware that all this may seem a tad airy-fairy he uses chapter 5 to nail his colours to the mast. Here he has to contend with questions regarding the evolving nature of the Zapatistas. Are they revolutionaries or reformists? Do they stand for nationalism or internationalism? What exactly is their relationship to the Mexican state? How do they relate to the working class? Most of the answers seem convincing to us. Mentinis demonstrates how the Zapatistas have at times silenced and isolated ‘the most radical voices associated with the most impoverished sectors’ of society (ibid, p.119). He also shows how NGO support and financial aid from bourgeois ‘sympathisers’ have affected autonomous decision-making (ibid, p.120). In practice only liberal and social democratic voices within the working class are foregrounded by the Zapatistas (ibid, p.121). Marcos’ resurrection of the concept of patria (inadequately translated as ‘homeland’) comes in for special scrutiny (ibid, pp.123-132). Mentinis also claims that over time the ‘anarcho-utopian elements have disappeared completely and have been replaced by reformist demands’ (ibid, p.134). Finally, he draws attention to how assemblies in Chiapas are ‘dominated by and often exclusively composed of men’ (ibid, p.143).
   
At first glance chapter 6 seem an oddity. It does not quite fit in with the structure of the book and yet in many ways it is the most intriguing section of the entire work. This is where Mentinis earns his keep as an amateur anthropologist by offering us a nuanced interpretation of the Zapatista mask. It discusses the indigenous metaphysics and the role of the shaman in both facilitating contact with the invisible world as well as spearheading previous revolts in Chiapas (ibid, p.164). It relates the interaction of this premodern shamanistic language of animal spirits with the postmodern discourse of Marcos and urban intellectuals. It even claims that some indigenous in Chiapas see Marcos as a god (ibid, p.166).

  
Mentinis forcefully argues that the primary function of the mask is not as a security measure. True, in some cases it affords protection from the authorities but most often the mask helps the Zapatistas ‘transcend the limits of the individual self and [become] a revolutionary unity’ (ibid, p.171). Only then do they feel strong enough to challenge both the state and the reactionary tendencies within their own ‘communities’. This is a fascinating point worthy of serious attention. It would also have been interesting to investigate if there are any functional or cultural connections between masks worn by Mexican wrestlers and masks worn by the Zapatistas. 

  
For far too long interpretations of the Zapatistas have been monopolised by reactionary Engels-Leninist and Anarchist cheerleaders. Sad, pathetic, impotent, creatures too weak and dim to take on capitalism, preferring instead to idolise a far-off mystical Che in an exotic land. Mentinis has provided a valuable service in denting this monopoly and opening an alternative vista for radicals. His criticisms of the academic racket supporting the Zapatistas are timely. We are even prepared to concede that his censure of revolutionary groups such as Aufheben and Wildcat is (mostly) fair. Although he has greatly enhanced Melancholic Troglodytes’ understanding of the Zapatista, we are still not convinced that the Zapatistas ever deserved the designation revolutionary.
   
The problem with Mentinis’ unconditional but critical support for the Zapatistas is that:
    … even when one has acquainted oneself thoroughly with life as lived by the people of Chiapas instead of the usual distant armchair critiques available for a nickel and dime;
    … even when one has made allowances for cultural nuances and linguistic ambiguities that have hampered previous analyses;
    … even when one has followed the political meanderings of the Zapatistas over a long enough timeframe instead of the snapshot, check-list approach favoured by lazy ‘radicals’;
    … even when one has acknowledged the genuine differences between this and previous uprisings in Latin America;
    … and even when one has bent over backwards to see the good and excuse the bad;
    … there still remains vast areas of completely unforgivable reactionary codswallop that make any genuine revolutionary, anywhere in the world,  uneasy at the prospect of joint actions or unconditional solidarity with the Zapatistas.
   
But then Mihalis Mentinis is a smart cookie who implicitly acknowledges all this, although he does so without making a clean break. Predictably the book ends with a half-hearted Parthian shot aimed at Marcos:

Unlike Marcos, however, who also confessed that 'among the human race, he has a special affection for the Mexican race' … we have affection for no particular nation or race. Our struggle is for a nationless and raceless socialism, and we are armed with a desire for revolution.’ (ibid, p.187)

Melancholic Troglodytes 

<meltrogs1 AT hotmail.com>

Zapatistas: The Chiapas Revolt and What It Means for Radical Politics, Mihalis Mentinis, Pluto Press (2006)