Zapatistas

Is there space for revolution in a post-communist world?

Yes and no.

No, because the name of revolution has been so tainted by communism that its associations with show trials, purges, famines, and destruction cannot be easily shaken. No, because no viable alternative to the current globalistic-capitalist world system exists; any revolution that seeks to ignore these powerful forces is doomed to failure, and any revolution that seeks to topple them finds itself floundering for an enunciated alternative after the loss of the ready-made answers of communism. No, because, Venezuela aside, there is no longer any world powers available to support revolutions in weaker countries.

Yes, and perhaps even more room. For now aspiring revolutionaries don’t have to turn to Moscow for support, with all the sacrifices inherent therein. For now they are free to create and imagine a new, democratic vision of social justice free from the horrors of Stalin. For now those who oppose capitalism don’t have to defend communism, a hopeless cause.

The Zapatistas, the band of peasants who armed themselves and revolted in southern Mexico in 1994, formed a model of this new kind of revolution. Reading about them, I am struck by how honest and almost primitive their goals are, the grassiest of roots, coming from their own needs and a pragmatic look at the situation, rather than any systematized ideology. Yet they manage, by linking their struggle to the historic fight of the Indians with white conquerors to lend their movement the weight of history and the international applicability to gain worldwide support. They see themselves as emblems of the anti-colonialists everywhere. The propose a new system of equity of gender, race, and class; a new democracy even for the poor.

The fact that they did not, ultimately, succeed, is troubling. The fact that they have had few succesors is even more so. Of all the revolutions taking place in the world today, none follow the model of the armed peasant women who captured the city hall in Chiapas. Most revolutionaries who call themselves anti-colonialist today represent a strain of Islamist fascism. They are fueled not by an honest reaction to their situation, but by a nihilistic hate fueled by a virulently destructive ideology. Revolutionaries in the Orient tend towards a neo-Maoism that amounts to little more than gangsterism. South American revolutionaries either are facades for drug cartels or the hypocritic work of rich oil states which combine populistic rhetoric with self-aggrandizement and a continuation of the globalist status quo.

What space is there left for revolution after communism? Not much. As I walk down the endless rows of revolutionary workers concrete boxes, of hideous statues of the revolutionary proletariat, of the dregs and dust of 55 years of ‘revolutionary’ government here in Lodz, I can’t help but ask if that’s not a good thing. The status quo creates vast inequalities in wealth, ignores the basics of social justice, and ravishes the environment. It must be changed. But not overthrown. To overthrow such a system would leave a gap which could be filled only by another set of five-year plans and smiling textile workers. Reform has replaced revolution as the battle cry for those who want change. Let’s harness the vast forces for the improvement of mankind unleashed by the revolutions that succeeded, the industrial and capitalist ones, and let’s make them fair, just, and concerned. This will require change, but not permanent revolution, no Robespierrian terror, no dictatorship of the revolutionaries.

And, in the end, it might just be possible.