No no, that wasn't what I meant. I see I need to write the long version :-)

First I was responding to the following from an European viewpoint:

...the strain of 1968 that refuses to make peace with authority and power no matter how reasonable the propostions being put forward are.

I wouldn't characterise 1968 as a revolt of uncompromising truebelievers. The later Red Brigades and Red Army Fraction (which you may know under the misleading 'Baader-Meinhof gang' name) would fit that description, but 1968 was a broad rebellion on real issues that for example crippled France for a month - and many onetime leading participants became leading politicians today.

Regarding Marcos, what I found strange was that you made him appear an ideologue, kind of reality-removed. But the 'Zapatistas' did much more in Chiapas than political philosophy - whatever one thinks on the value of these, they created autonomous village communities and effected land redistribution.

The current propaganda tour by Marcos also aims at spreading these autonomous communities across Mexico, to get people to self-organise. Such organisation is a mainstay of leftism, voting for a President is just not enough, the líder--followers model is not a lasting one. Speaking of elections, let me offer you this alternative view on the Zapatistas: on one hand, by not competing in the elections, they are in fact giving AMLO & PRD more of a chance (contrast that with the hard left in say Chile); on the other hand, should an elected government roll over regional interests, those hit hard have every right to resist.

But back to the uncompromising truebeliever/ideologue theme. Wanting one party on the Left, centrism and this form of dismissal has a long tradition in the USA, but it is one I'm not at all fond of. (Disclaimer: I may be motivated here by having lived through the nineties when Europe was dominated by centre-left parties, which squandered every chance for implementing any significant lasting reforms in their direction - unlike their rightist counterparts.)

This dismissal sounds as if ideological debate is only academic, and not also a very real and cutting-into-the-flesh policy debate. Criticism of a moderate reform policy package is not necessarily motivated by philosophy department longing for dogmatic purity, but differing-from-your views that those reforms are not reasonable - but (a) insignificant, or (b) counterbalanced by other policies or lack of reforms in other fields, or (c) could backfire later or not achieve lasting change.

In Latin America, my emphasis would be on the last: lasting change. In the US, redistribution and expropriations are anathema, but with the perhaps more encroached and unfair ownership structures in 19th/early20th century Europe and today's Latin America, they are very much on the agenda (or were sometime in the last two centuries). Money for the poor just won't do it in itself, and certainly not a mere election victory.

Let's review the political spectrum: AMLO doesn't like to be compared to Chávez. But, apart from fiery rhetoric, as I made the case in an earlier diary, Chávez's economic policies are relatively tame - far away from Castro's command economy, and tamer than say the Atlee government's reforms in post-war Britain. López Obrador more likes comparison with Brazil's Lula. But Lula, while cutting some ties with the Washington Consensus, can't be said to having ditched neoliberalism altogether (the pro-agribusiness permit of GM food is one indication), and shied away from land reform. Back to López Obrador, his lack of rejection of NAFTA indicates to me that even less far left than Lula, Mexico won't be part of a Latin American (economic) block opposed to the USA. To come finally to Subcommandante Marcos, he is from a long-running Latin American tradition (which didn't start with 1968 or Che, and which is not as fringe there as in the USA) that is clearly to the left of Chávez.

I think these are very real differences, and the disagreements stemming from it can't be put down to hotheadism. And while I don't share the view that the Chilean far left's irresponsible impatience was crucial for Allende's downfall, still I would make the point that the Zapatistas vs. PRD doesn't compare - they neither depend on nor directly compete with each other.

As a closing note, my own view on the standoff (which, if you read carefully, I haven't expressed in the above!) is to bet on both horses: I wish López Obrador to be elected, and I wish Marcos to inspire rural grassroots organisation and to be around to egg AMLO on from the Left, and to be around as a credible candidate for the Left should AMLO fail to deliver.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

It's true that  geography is an impediment here, but the large numbers of Ecuadorians in Madrid show it can happen.  If the US border is militarized I think it would at least slow immigration into the US.   I'm all for solutions that address immigration that work by creating opportunity in immigrant's home countries, but I have to say that I think I'm glad us Americans have an immigrant class that's shares a smiliar cultural background and religion to the peple already here.  There are problems but we don't have jihad in the dykes like happenened in the Netherlands recently with Theo Van Gogh.  

I've always found it curious that Europeans haven't shown a preference and encouragement to Latin immigrants o ver Arabs for this reason.  Of course until recently South America was where Europeans went to make their money then come home.

I prefer a third strain of thought - not wanting to repeat the run-ups to WWI and WWII.

There was never a WWIII. I'm a strong believer in the idea that forces over time change how societies think and act, and that what's happening now isn't a guarantee that things will be the same in the future.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg