[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: NAFTA, Capitalism and Alternatives, Debate VIII/2
> level of Mexico as a whole. The state wants to maintain the basic
> economic institutions of Chiapas (business control, the dominance of the
> wealthy over the poor, the extraction for export of local wealth,
> racial discrimination against and exploitation of indigenous people,
> etc), while the Zapatistas want to change ALL that. But WHY is the PRI
> so attached to ALL THAT? Because it is integral to its overall plan for
> capitalist development in Mexico. Because if the Zapatistas achieve
> really fundamental change, even just in Chiapas, the whole structure
> would be threatened.
The above statement is at the heart of the matter. This is the
disagreement at the heart of this thread. The PRI is resisting the
Zapatistas NOT to carry out some capitalist plan as Harry argues, but
merely to maintain PRI control. The PRI PRETENDS to pursue
neoliberalism. It is windowdressing. Salinas and his brother and
friends have proven this. Making Salinas and his friends rich is not
capitalism, it is authoritarianism. Call it authoritarian capitalism if
you must call it capitalism, but if you admit to this, then it is no
longer neoliberalism. The terms do not match the reality. That is why a
constructive focus for such discussion should follow the same line as
Subcommandante Marcos, and shift from anti-capitalist language to a
critique of the system the PRI actually uses to maintain power in Mexico.
Victor Story
Kutztown U.
Follow-Ups:
References: