An Autonomist Marxist Perspective on the Peasantry, pt 2

Notes on The Contemporary Peasantry in Mexico: A Class Analysis by Ann Lucas de Rouffignac

Raises key question – how are we defining peasantry? Only as those who do not sell their labor power? Based on land ownership? Etc. I can trace the debate b/t different thinkers on this question but ultimately must also lay out my own definition of who is the peasantry.

ALR is arguing that “survival” of the peasantry does not make it a relic of a past mode of production; nor a form which has outlived its usefulness, is backwards, etc. Rather she situates the survival of the peasantry as the result of their aspirations for (and victories towards) a different type of society. In other words, the peasantry hasn’t withered away to the extent that it has successfully fought off capitalist offensives against its social relations/existence.

She makes an important point in countering the ideas of Roger Bartra and Fernando Rello. Many thinkers define the peasantry based on whether it sells its labor power for a wage or not; in other words the presence of a wage is the defining factor. Yet if that’s the case, how can these thinkers make sense of the unemployed/lumpen, housewives, children or elderly (or other categories) who are habitually or permanently unwaged? This is part of ALR’s overall point – that the wage hides other forms of exploitation that are just as vital and central to capitalism as the actual wage which marks the sale of labor power.

Important to consider how peasantry has often overlapped with “Indian” in Marxist literature, and thus perspectives that omit the peasantry as agents of class struggle will implicitly (or explicitly) omit the “Indian” as an agent of history/class struggle. Hence the key contribution of Mariategui.

Question. Thus far ALR has not defined what she considers the proletariat or working class. If it is not the wage nor the ownership of land which defines the peasantry, rather it is the social relation, then what specifically does she consider the defining social relation of the proletariat proper?


********
ALR divides debate into campesinistas and descampesinistas.

A) Descampesinistas

1) Class Structure

Roger Bartra, Fernando Rello

Bartra argues peasantry belongs to non-capitalist, “simple mercantile” mode of production – a mode constituted of small commodity producers who own their means of production – and as such are not formally subsumed to capital. Any layer of peasantry that even part-time sells its own labor power is no longer peasant but semi-proletariat or rural proletariat.

Rello disagrees, argues peasant economy not a separate mode of production. Forms of production can contain elements that contain pre-capitalist modes of production but coexist with capitalist mode of production. Yet both Rello and Bartra agree that revolutionary character of the peasantry is limited by their condition as owners of the means of production.

Francisco Gómez Jara identifies 3 major social classes in the Mexican countryside, defined primarily by whether the landowner hires wage labor or not. There is the bourgeoisie, agricultural proletariat and peasant class (defined as those who have land but hire no salaried labor and includes Indian communities with communal lands who use cooperative labor and also occasionally sell their labor power).

Luisa Paré distinguishes a similar class structure (bourgeoisie, peasantry and proletariat) broken down along a quantifiable criterion of what percentage of gross income is derived from the wage. Richard Pozas identifies the bourgeoisie and proletariat, and denies the presence of a peasantry.

2) Speed of Proletarianization

Broken up into two camps: proletaristas and non-proletaristas.

Proletaristas as those descampesinistas who believe the peasantry are being transformed into proletariat and are thus a disappearing class. There are differences over how rapidly this process will happen. They point to vast number of “semi-proletarians” (peasants who still work the land but also sell labor power part time) and the large migrant rural population (true rural proletariat) as evidence of eventual disappearance of peasantry as a class. Bartra argues advanced capitalism never developed in Mexico, therefore proletarianization of the peasantry has been retarded yet eventually capitalist mode of production will destroy the peasantry.

One counterargument that ALR consistently makes in this chapter is that if there is a process of proletarianization happening among the peasantry, then why do class struggles in the countryside continue to struggle for land rather than “proletarian” demands like forming unions or better working conditions. Some authors like Gomez Jara recognize this contradiction but then explain it by saying that such demands represent a petite-bourgeois consciousness and are only reinforced by the agrarian populist manipulations and repression by the state.

Nonproletaristas disagree that the destruction of the peasantry automatically translates into the creation of a rural proletariat. Some like Luisa Pare argue that capital cannot accommodate so much labor power. Most are pessimistic and forecast a disaster-type future for the peasantry.

3) Peasant Struggle

The descampesinistas discount any peasant role in constructing an alternative/socialist society. Struggle for land is peasant, not proletarian in character. Bartra asserts peasants have no class consciousness. The proletariat and the peasantry may ally under the tutelage of the former. Gomez Jara identifies peasant struggle as only useful to the capitalist class, b/c revitalizing the ejido and distributing land are simply state efforts at stabilizing the peasantry and extracting more surplus value from the peasant economy.

ALR acknowledges that land concessions often serve to coopt political struggle among the peasantry; yet at same time the land may also be used by the peasants as a basis for more struggle against capitalist accumulation. She points out that often wage concessions by capitalists to proletarians are moves to coopt struggle among workers and spur capital to reorganize production against workers; yet these thinkers wouldn’t consider wage struggles as only advantageous to capital.

ALR also critical of Gomez Jara for emphasizing need for revolutionary party to lead peasant struggle. No need to repeat arguments here.

B) Campesinistas

1) Class Structure

Arturo Warman, Armando Bartra

Warman argues the essence of being a peasant is found in the complexity of the social relations that govern them. Entering the labor market does not indicate proletarianization. It is simply one way the peasants seek to reinforce their existence as a peasant class by bringing resources and funds back to the community. Selling labor power is simply one strategy in the struggle to survive as peasants.

Bartra argues that peasants orient their life around their parcel of land and its requirements. Peasants will work for a salary only to make up a deficit in their subsistence from their parcel of land. They are still peasant; the presence or non-presence of a wage is secondary.

ALR cites other authors such as Palerm and Stavenhagen who debate the mode of production, who belongs to it, how it functions, etc. She says she’d rather not join that debate and is instead interested in how this social class interacts with the capitalist system. She attributes some of P and S’s ideas to Rosa Luxemburg’s The Accumulation of Capital. She summarizes the argument raised there as that capitalism needs the peasant sector (which is “outside” of capitalism) for realization of surplus value and as a source of extra surplus value for accumulation. Therefore a special relationship has evolved that constantly recreates the peasant sector instead of destroying it. [52]

2) Proletarianization

The campesinistas argue that the peasantry as a class is etiher stable or growing. They point to faulty research, false govt reporting, etc., to prove that arguments to the contrary as without basis. Some like Gustavo Esteva point to a process of recampesinización. Peasants resist proletarianization and instead reinforce their forms of social existence in their communities. In some cases, peasants who left the land or did not have any use the wage to obtain land. Meanwhile they never interrupt their participation in the community. While many migrants end up in the cities seeking a wage (which Esteva sees as peasants trying to find better economic and social living conditions), there is a tendency for this process to reverse as migrants frequently leave the cities due to problems of capitalism like unemployment. They then return to the countryside and to the land once again.

3) SUbsumption to Capital

There is a debate among campesinistas over whether the peasantry is exploited by capital in the sphere of production.

Bartra argues that peasants are exploited as producers because of their non-capitalist methods of production. The exploitation of the peasant is based in production (peasant methods of production) but realized in the market (when the surplus changes hands). He says the difference b/t the peasant producer and the capitalists is that the former produces only for subsistence, not for profit. ALR interprets Bartra’s argument to mean that he thinks the cause of exploitation is rooted within the peasantry itself; he says they are not rational, not cognizant that they are exploited by the terms of trade.

Esteva characterizes the development and expansion of agrarian capitalism in Mexico as seeking the control of the productive processes instead of direct ownership of the land. He sees a tendency toward contract agriculture, where the direct operation and ownership of land remains in the hands of individuals such as peasants, while the control of the productive processes is acquired by agribusiness. Since the bulk of the risks associated with production and the work of managing or organizing production is left in the hands of the direct producers, the fiction of apeasant class possessing its own productive factors, operating as an autonomous unit and exploiting its own members of the community (via wage labor) is maintained.

Ultimately though, these peasants are working for capital in a particular relation of production. The entire peasant unit of production (via credit, contracts, inputs, etc.) is subsumed to capital. It appears to be an economic unit relating independently with the capitalist unit b/c capital uses this form of production relations to elude paying the social obligations and benefits historically won by the working class. [57]

4) Peasant Struggle

Campesinistas offer advances (albeit contradictory) over what decampesinistas have to say on role of peasant struggle. Bartra for example disagrees with typical characterization of pathetic peasants who are too weak to do anything about their exploitation. Instead he examines how actual peasant struggles have time and again forced concessions from the Mexican state. Bartra and Esteva both see land as the main goal of struggle for both peasants and rural workers. Yet Esteva adds that autonomy from capital is what the peasantry is really seeking when it demands land.

Bartra that peasant “acquires a socialist conscience only with difficulty and by himself cannot offer a strategic alternative to bourgeois society.” [58] Peasants only have revolutionary subjectivity insofar as they participate in a worker-peasant alliance.

Warman sees peasant struggle as a class movement. He recognizes that the peasantry is not just reclaiming the past but is demanding the conditions necessary to transform the future. Esteva agrees.

This leads to the vía campesina. This represents the variety of new options for the development of society resulting from the struggles of peasants. This path is the “alternative road to postcapitalist development in the countryside.” [59] Esteva argues that the peasantry as a class can adopt social organizations of their own to advance a process of modernization that adjusts to their necessities.

“Today the vía campesina is denied both by technocrats in the service of big business and the state and by Marxists in the service of socialist orthodoxy. Both are afraid of losing control over the process of development, of being excluded from a society that may have no room for capitalists or socialists, no room for those who think up ways to extract surplus value for either capitalist or socialist accumulation.” [60]

Sources to follow up on:

Paul Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development (1942)

Gustavo Esteva, La Batalla en el Mexico Rural

Read More...

An Autonomist Marxist Perspective on the Peasantry, pt 1

Notes on The Contemporary Peasantry in Mexico: A Class Analysis by Ann Lucas de Rouffignac

She is trying to develop a “social capital” perspective on the peasantry, based on thesis that the peasantry is an integral part of today’s working class.

How can I think about and relate that premise to the ideas on primitive accumulation as an ongoing feature of capitalism, developed by Goldner, Federici, et. al. ?

Counterpoint. ALR argues there is revolutionary nature to peasant struggle, and peasantry is part of working class (unwaged). Is this a helpful way to think of the peasantry? Or does it blur important lines of distinction to class experience of industrial proletariat? Or is her argument simply to say peasantry composes one layer of a multi-layered working class (defined broadly as oppressed laborers)? Plus this thesis doesn’t answer question of strategic positions of power within capitalism – that some layers of working class have more power due to their relation to production, their resistance is able to more directly and more quickly strike at the heart of capitalism than other layers. This is not a value judgment or meant to disregard those “less” strategic layers of the class.

Counterpoint. ALR quotes Selma James on how the wage or lack of wage comprises the basic division within the working-class hierarchy. [29] True but then we need to think strategically about how to overcome these divisions, how to bridge these gaps within class struggle. If unwaged peasantry fights isolated from waged proletariat, both are weakened in struggle. Related to isolation/lack of generalization of Zapatista struggle within Mexico. (need to see ALR’s perspective on this).

*************

Chapter 1

ALR on Marx:

Open to interpretation when it comes to the peasantry. At times wrote conflicting perspectives on peasantry. But key is to adapt Marx’s method when looking at the peasantry, maybe not so much his direct writings.

Two fates for the peasantry:

Dissolution of the peasantry (“natural”) – that as capitalism developed the peasantry was doomed to disintegrate. Small peasant production couldn’t compete with large scale modern agriculture and industry, so peasants sink gradually into the proletariat. Some peasants become capitalist farmers. This disintegration necessary because capitalism depended on “free” labor or separation of labor from the means of production; so peasants needed to be separated from the means (land) left with nothing to sell but their labor power.

Primitive Accumulation (“forced”) – forcible expropriation of the peasantry. Marx used example of England, where peasants were driven from feudal estates, enclosure of the commons in the 18th century, homes and villages burned and destroyed.

Marx on political role of peasantry: used example of French Revolution of 1848. French proletariat thru provisionsal republican govt imposed a new tax on peasantry, so the peasantry were alienated from proletariat and supported Louis Bonaparte. Yet Marx was clear that the peasants’ vote for Bonaparte was a vote against their own exploitation and higher taxes. Once Bonaparte started trampling on the peasants they turned against him and began siding with the proletariat.

Moral of the story? Peasants, just like proletariat, learn through actual experience with whom their interests lie. Marx pointed out that exploitation of peasant is only different in form from exploitation of proletariat. The exploiter is the same capital. This becomes key to ALR’s thesis that peasantry is also exploited by capital and thus is part of working class. But for now she points out that Marx didn’t take this point to logical conclusion, instead he said French peasants were incapable of revolutionary initiative. [4]

ALR argues we should avoid trap that followers of Marx fall into of converting Marx’s analysis of capitalism in England into a general historical sequence that all countries must experience. Marx himself saw that the peasant society and communal property of Russia in mid 19th century was “the finest occasion that history has ever offered a people not to undergo all the sudden turns of fortune of the capitalist system.” [5] ALR quotes a letter Marx sent to Vera Zasulich who had requested his perspective on peasantry in Russia in 1881. In that passage Marx not only denies the unilineal development of all societies but brings forth the dynamism of the peasant village community – “the real possibilities of a postcapitalist society developing from the roots of the peasant community.” [6] It was not required that all societies go thru a capitalist stage of development nor that the peasantry be destroyed in the process.

ALR on Engels:

Engels takes a more static interpretation of Marx on the peasantry, advancing an interpretation of history as a linear sequence of modes of production. She takes up his The Peasant War in Germany wherein he seeks to explain that the 1848 revolution in Germany failed for the same reasons the 16th century peasant rebellions failed – because any revolutionary that had a strong petite-bourgeois element (i.e. peasants) without the leadership of a strong proletariat class would fail. Key!! Gilly makes a similar claim about Mexico.

ALR points out that Engels’ claim about peasant revolutions holds no water because proletarian struggles have failed to. Other factors have to be taken into consideration when determining why a revolution failed or succeeded (i.e. strategies employed, balance of power of each class at a given historical moment, etc.).

Engels believed the peasantry cannot contribute to revolution or to the transition to socialism because of their attachment to private property and their peculiar social relation. The peasant was a survivor of a past mode of production.

ALR on Lenin:

* Need to revisit Kevin Anderson book on Lenin b/c I thought Lenin’s perspective on peasantry was more complicated than ALR lays out.

Lenin argued peasantry would be destroyed thru process of “differentiation.” There existed various types of peasants – agricultural wage workers (ex-peasants), middle peasants (inevitable members of the proletariat) and “capitalist” peasants (who hired wage labor). Only the industrialized proletariat can wage mass struggle against autocracy. Peasants can struggle and overthrow feudalism but not capitalism. True proletarian struggle must be brought from the cities to the countryside. The task of the party was to explain to the rural workers that its interests are opposed to those of the peasant bourgeoisie.

Initially when Bolsheviks took power, state policy toward small peasant farming was to replace it by large state collective farms. Peasants resisted en masse, rejecting being forced into communes. In 1921 Lenin softened his policy toward the peasantry. ALR argues that Lenin relied almost exclusively on the category of the wage to identify social structure in the countryside. Peasants, unwaged, did not form a class-for-itself. Rural proletariat was an ally but revolution would be organized and directed by the urban industrial proletariat.

ALR on Mao:

For Mao revolution was brought from countryside to the cities, though he retained the belief that overall strategy and direction be entrusted to the urban industrial proletariat and intellectuals.

Mao recognized that peasants were capable of autonomous struggle and coordinated revolutionary action. Yet the peasantry was not making a proletarian socialist revolution, rather they were making a bourgeois democratic revolution. The peasant revolution was a stage of transition – a “new democratic revolution” – b/t the abolition of colonial, semi-colonial, and semi-feudal society and the establishment of a socialist society. The new democratic revolution would clear the way for capitalism (by destroying colonialism and feudalism), and then the establishment of capitalism would create the prereqs for socialism thru a growing proletariat accompanied by its vanguard in the CCP.

ALR on Stalin:

USSR defined by the state as socialist. Since in socialism the relations of production are in harmony with the forces of production, there can be no contradiction, class struggle was defined out of existence. Political turmoil can only be counter-revolutionary and deserving of repression. The peasantry was destined to disintegrate which justified “socialist primitive accumulation.”

ALR on Marta Harnecker:

Harnecker considers the most important relation of production to be the relation of ownership and nonownership of the means of production. The peasantry belongs to some precapitalist mode of production; peasants seek only to maintain themselves and their families and not to create value from their property. Further, the private appropriation of a land parcel allows the peasants ownership of their own labor power. Since they own their own means of production and product of their labor they cannot be seen as members of the proletariat and are therefore incapable of realizing true socialist revolution.

Harnecker sees peasant struggles as spontaneous, isolated, motivated by petite bourgeois desires for wealth and property.

ALR argues that when peasants demand land, capital will often attempt to use land reform as a means to stabilize and control the peasantry. Yet a) such tactics are often responses by capital to the growth of working class initiatives and power and b) they often fail.

The Debate in Latin America:

Debate gained momentum when questions of underdevelopment and dependency became serious. Mainstream Marxists still believed that the peasantry disappears with the onset of capitalist industrialization and modernization, so the lack of development and presence of the peasantry must be the result of retarding old forms of production. Underdevelopment was the result of remaining feudal relations of production.

Opposed to this view was Andre Gunder Frank who argued that the backwardness of Latin American society resulted not from feudalism but from the expansion of the world capitalist system. Frank argued the peasant sector is not feudalist or isolated but intimately related and exploited by urban and international capitalist society through economic, commercial, political and social relations. No bourgeois revolution necessary in Latin America, instead Frank argued there needed to be a worker-peasant alliance to overthrow dependent capitalism. There were no more peasants (1970s) in the traditional sense of independent, self-reliant cultivators, rather today’s peasants constitue the rural proletariat.

Fernandez and Ocampo disagreed and said Latin America was fundamentally feudal based on an analysis of agriculture.

ALR argues this debate is useless b/c the authors do not look at the real struggle happening on the ground across the continent. Instead the authors are focusing on whether Latin America is capitalist, feudal or something else so that they can fit it into their narrow stagist conceptions of history and thereby have language through which to explain the continent (rather than studying what’s actually happening and developing categories that fit that actual experience).

Social Capital:

ALR influenced by Italian autonomism. Cites Mario Tronti.

“Circulation and reproduction of capital includes reproduction of the classes and class relation. If the social work day produces, reproduces, and accumulates new capital and new labor power, then the working class must be redefined to include those doing the work of producing and reproducing labor power. Workers are not only those producing value in the factory but must now include those working in the social factory reproducing the labor power.” [24-25]

Capital is not a thing but a class relation. The working class has a dynamic role, forcing, at times, capital to redefine itself and develop along new lines. Hence it is essential to focus on the role and initiative of the rank and file within the working class.

Cites Selma James and Mariarose Dalla Costa who make connection of unwaged work. The wage or lack thereof hit not only unpaid work done in the factory but unpaid work done outside it as well. The family is a center of social production, not just consumption. The woman is at home producing labor power as a commodity within the social factory. But because her work is unwaged it appears to be a personal service outside of capital within some precapitalist working condition. Women are workers exploited by capital but whose relationship with capital is mediated by men via the wage.

To be wageless is not necessarily to e outside of the capitalist relation. [29]

Cites Harry Cleaver.

“Cleaver argued that these workers-peasants-members of the reserve army constitue a part of total variable capital and must be maintained, reproduced, and supported by capital. For example, it is sometimes the case that land reform is used by capital to stabilize the peasants on the land—to keep them working but working at their own reproduction as reserve army, and, to the extent that they produce an agricultural surplus, contributing to the expansion of capitalist accumulation. ‘To be wageless is not to be outside or alongside accumulation, it is to be part of it. The unwaged must be accumulated right along with the waged.’” [29-30]

So the peasant has an unwaged function within capitalist production. But they are also part of the working class through their struggle against capital. “The realization that peasant struggle (even over land) is working-class struggle potentially disrupting capitalist accumulation shatters the orthodox Marxist image of the petit-bourgeois reactionary peasant.” [30]

ALR discusses self-valorization – the class’s capacity to bring about development which is completely alternative to capitalist valorization; people’s definition of self-needs that are outside and autonomous to capital; the process of self-val. Becomes the power to withdraw from exchange value and the ability ot re-appropriate the world of use values.

The peasant community and the concomitant attachment to land has the potential to allow peasant development of a life separate from and not dominated by capital.

“Peasants are already organized and always have been. The community is the basis of their struggle; the basis of their future self-development, which is self-valorization as opposed to capitalist valorization. Using community ties and institutions is not anarchic or a return to the past, but contributes to the overall struggle against the intrusion of capital into their daily lives—that is, contributes to class struggle.” [31]

Sources to follow up on:

Harry Cleaver, “The Internationalization of Capital and the Mode of Production in Agriculture, “ Economic and Political Weekly, March 27, 1976

Marta Harnecker, Los Conceptos Elementales del Materialismo Historico

Read More...

When Shifting Class Tensions Converge

This makes me think of Iran in a different way (or perhaps the current events in Iran are making me think of Mexico in a different way).

Important dividing lines coalesced in 1910:

a) Village resistance took on increasingly deep character, converging with other forms of peasant and working class struggles – this was partly due to growing contradiction b/t haciendas and indigenous communities still independent in central Mexico. Whereas Spanish Crown had (out of self-preservation) defended some aspects of independent indigenous communities, “the modern capitalist organization and individualist doctrines of the Restored Republic were hostile to any element of autonomous organization, any relation unmediated by money or unreceptive to direct or indirect market arms. The free villages…therefore had to be eliminated.”[41]

b) Gilly says the defensive struggles of the free villages would’ve eventually been liquidated by capital and the state except for they had a second dividing line on their side (in a sense) – the urban petty bourgeoisie, swollen by the development of capitalism, was beginning to be alienated by the “ossification of the Porifiriato” (meaning the state had foreclosed upward social mobility to the petty bourgeoisie) and was breaking its former silence and attraction to Porifirian “peace and progress”. Gilly says the u.p.b. was driven to attitudes of discontent and even rebellion.

c) This combined social pressure served to produce symptoms of crisis and division among the capitalist and landowning bourgeoisie in whose name Diaz and the científicos exercised power.

d) Important point that Gilly raises: “It was not local peasant risings…but great workers’ strikes that most directly concentrated the country-wide ferment in centers of economic importance.” [48] He argues that the resistance/rebellions of the industrial proletariat (1903, 1906, 1908) made it possible for peasant revolt to take on the scale and character it did and distinguish it from earlier periods of peasant revolt. Gilly writes, “capitalism provided the basis for the agrarian rebellion maturing in the countryside to culminate in a national-scale revolution rather than a mere peasant revolt.”

Read More...

Gilly and Bookchin on the Peasantry

Adolfo Gilly’s work on the Mexican Revolution (MR) is generally revered in both academic and left circles as one of the best histories, informed by a Marxist analysis with an eye towards from below social forces. Gilly is (was?) a Trot and so I find he comes with a bit of Trot baggage, and is best read alongside other accounts of the Revolution that have a more left-libertarian leaning. Since Gilly’s book is considered the sort of pre-eminent “people’s history” of the Revolution, I see my thesis as needing to be in conversation/debate with his work, pulling in some key thinkers like Bookchin, Mariátegui, and Gramsci to aid me in my battle against Gilly.

One of the areas in Gilly’s book I’ve been trying to confront is his perspective on the role, character and activity of the Mexican peasantry in the revolution. He lays out some key ideas in Chapter 3 where he explains the origins of Zapatismo and the rebellions that marked the early years of the Revolution among the southern peasantry. Gilly raises a number of important points for consideration as to why the MR failed, or at least failed to accomplish what the Russian Revolution did. Among those points, he argues that a key flaw of the MR was that it was “peasant-led”; that the industrial working class failed to assert itself as the vanguard of struggle and that there was no revolutionary vanguard (I assume he means something akin to the Bolshevik party) present to cohere that proletarian vanguard which could then lead the peasantry to socialism. To put it simply, there was no Mexican Lenin (which there couldn’t be because there was no Mexican Bolshevik Party).

I will have to take up the question of revolutionary organization within the MR at some point. Some did indeed exist (mostly anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist; there was no official CP in Mexico until the 1920s and even that was in part built by anarchists) and it’s important to go thru what role they played in relationship to the revolting working class and peasants. But for now I want to focus more broadly on Gilly’s portrayal of the peasantry because through my readings of Bookchin and others I’ve come to draw very different conclusions about what role they played in the Revolution, and what that meant for what was or was not possible in the MR overall.

Here are some notes & quotes from Gilly to situate his perspective:

- Morelos state was the stronghold of Zapatismo. It was there that many free villages (basically indigenous communities that had maintained control of their land) had retained or sought to recover their lands from the surrounding haciendas, while a concentrated agricultural proletariat had grown up on the sugar plantations. Zapatismo had its roots in that dense population of peasants and agricultural workers.

- Morelos had long been dominated by sugar plantations. In the late 19th century the haciendas had swallowed up many of the communal lands, reducing free villages to islands surrounded by a sea of haciendas. In the first decade of the 20th century the Morelos plantation owners made large investments in machinery and Morelos became the most modern industrial region in the country.

- Many uprooted peasants still held the deeds to their stolen land, and those communal deeds played an important role in the early stages of the revolution. The deeds legitimized recourse to armed insurrection and acted as a unifying point around which countless communities could unite. Gilly says “The Mexican peasant revolution began without a prior theory or program. The first objective of nationwide struggle was to recover communal lands. It appeared then as a natural continuation of the long struggle to enforce the legality of the peasants’ historical claim.” [62-63]

- “The southern peasantry initially rose up in political support of a wing of the ruling elite.” – b/c at first they gathered together behind Madero’s San Luis Potosí Plan which Gilly situates as their main link with the national revolution – “It then rapidly shifted to a de facto alliance, insofar as the revolution developed an independent leadership and an awareness of the conflict of class interests with Maderism. Finally this alliance turned into an open break through the emergence of a distinct program.” – the Ayala Plan written by Zapata et. al. [67]

- The Ayala Plan “proposes to nationalize all the property of enemies of the revolution—that is, all the landowners and capitalists of Mexico. Secondly, it goes beyond the Jacobin wing in stating that dispossessed peasants should immediately take over the land and that ‘such property will be resolutely defended with arms in hand.’” [72]

- “Emiliano Zapata did not set out to destroy the capitalist system: his ideas sprang from the peasantry, not from a socialist program. However, implementation of the Ayala Plan would have effectively smashed the living roots of capitalism. For it would have involved nationalization of all the property of the ruling classes. More important still…was the principle that the people themselves should decide, ‘arms in hand’…The peasants of southern Mexico, however, were unable to carry this logic to its conclusion. The Ayala Plan, like the actions of the peasantry, only went so far as to counterpose popular initiative to capitalist power. It effectively created dual power…but it did not raise the prospect of another state power…Taken as a whole, it encapsulated the contradiction between peasant ideology and the revolutionary action of the armed peasantry. The methods were revolutionary…but the peasantry could not rise to a nationwide social perspective or offer a revolutionary solution for the insurgent nation.” [73]

- For Gilly the decisive factor was not revolutionary land seizures but control of the centralized state power.

- “The final fate of the revolution would not be decided in the countryside, but in the cities. The mighty revolutionary impetus of the peasantry managed to reach the city, but once there it could do no more than leave power in the hands of a weak and terrified petty bourgeoisie which did, however, represent a viable option: that of the bourgeoisie.” [73-74] (why not the urban working class?)

- The peasantry is of a dual nature: “which tends toward the proletariat as an exploited class and toward the bourgeoisie as a class of property owners” which is especially so for Morelos peasants “which comprised both peons or agricultural laborers and peasants tilling village land or aspiring to till their own.” After the first stage of the revolution and the peasantry was “faced with basic political choices, they could either follow a socialist course or bow to bourgeois legality.” [74]

- Earlier Gilly takes up Marx’s analysis of “Asiatic modes of production.” He argues that indigenous civilization and social organization (Aztec, Mayan) could be included in that category, emphasizing their backwardness and immobility, their “intrinsic resistance to change.” He argues these old agrarian communities could rise and fall for centuries without altering the pattern of communal peasant life. Spanish conquest did not suppress those social relations but merely supplanted the Spanish throne at the top. It wasn’t until Porfirian capitalism that the decomposition of these social relations were hastened, though capitalism failed to introduce higher forms of social organization in the countryside. [43-45]

- Gilly also takes up Marx & Engels on the question of could the peasantry, rooted in forms of collectivist agrarian organization, leap directly into socialist collective forms without undergoing capitalist development of social forces. Gilly’s interpretation: that M & E said peasantry could leap ahead only after one or more countries had overthrown capitalism b/c peasantry could then model itself on socialist experience without going thru capitalism.

**************

Bookchin provides a useful counterpoint to Gilly’s depiction of the peasantry which, if we agree, has important consequences for how we think about the MR as a whole.

Bookchin writes of a self-active peasantry whose aspirations for a more liberatory, democratic society were routinely crushed by ruling social classes. He tells the history of the two main social forces in Russia in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries -- the Russian peasantry and the gentry – accordingly:

“The nobility was hierarchical in its outlook, holding a pyramidal view of society as a system of command and obedience. The peasantry, by contrast, had an egalitarian outlook and saw the world in terms of complementary relationships in which each household deserved to receive its fair share of land based on need rather than status. Thus, to the nobility, social ties were ‘held together by subordination’, while to the peasantry, they were ‘held together by mutual responsibility.’ Moreover, the nobility, with its new European ways and its appetite for city living, tended to be cosmopolitan, while the peasantry, virtually boxed into its scattered villages, was devoutly parochial. The gentry was ‘oriented to state service’, to the extent that it was oriented toward any form of service at all. The peasantry, by contrast, was ‘oriented to survival’, and viewed any external attempt to control the village as morally demonic. Finally, the gentry viewed land as private property, whether it had been acquired by inheritance, robbery, or as a gift from the tsar. The peasantry, in very sharp contrast, regarded land as a communal resource that ‘belonged to God’ …and could not be truly owned by any individual.” [Third Revolution V3, 8-9]

The ensemble of peasant ideas – egalitarianism, mutual responsibility, and communalism – were expressed in varying forms of village democracy such as chernyi peredel (‘black redistribution’, a periodic democratic redistribution of land within the village based on need) and the skhod (village assembly of all adult householders that administered the land redistribution).

The collectivism of the peasantry were the result not only of traditional ideals but also “unrelenting necessity.” [Third Revolution V3, 15] Material scarcity and wars plagued an inequitable society and thus made a well-knit collectivity indispensable for the survival of peasant communities. Bookchin emphasizes the organic abhorrence of most peasants to private property or using land as a form of capital. “Indeed, it was fervently believed that it was an affront to morality and godliness for the deserving and the needy to have too little land to satisfy the family’s needs, while the undeserving and affluent had too much. The Russian peasant, in effect, was an ingrained leveller.” [14]

This stands in stark contrast to Gilly whose own manner of discussing similar sentiments is to say that those were almost negative qualities; characteristics that belonged to a mode of production that needed to be surpassed and were in themselves acting as an obstacle to progress/development/advancement. For Bookchin, a freer and more enlightened Russia might well have emerged had its internal development not been trammeled by outside forces and aspiring ruling classes. [4] For Gilly, a freer and more enlightened Mexico was not at all possible at the hands of the peasantry.

Read More...

Art and more

A short interesting post over at constellationDefiant on one of Diego Rivera's murals in Detroit. In my thesis I haven't taken up much on art, the Mexican muralists, or their relationship to the Mexican left during/after the Revolution, but nevertheless find that relationship fascinating.

What I have been taking up recently: been re-reading Adolfo Gilly's The Mexican Revolution, alongside John Reed's Insurgent Mexico (for the first time). The latter is a somewhat humorous, illustrative account, though I'm not far in so maybe that impression will change. I'm hoping that text, and a few others like Mariano Azuela's Los de Abajo and B. Traven's Rebellion of the Hanged can give me some inspiration for how to animate my thesis...how to make it a living, breathing history/perspective and not just a dry academic tract.

Read More...

Worlds of Work in Mexico City

Notes from Chapter 2 of John Lear's Workers, Neighbors, and Citizens: The Revolution in Mexico City

Concentration, de-skilling, and division -- three important and inter-related dynamics that marked the development of the working class in Mexico City between roughly 1895 and 1910.

Urban Growth

Railroads played an important role. Gilly discusses the way in which the railroads marked the form in which foreign capital flowed into, and came to dominate, the Mexican economy. Lear expands on this and shows how the rails developed the Mexican working class. He writes,

"Railroads were constituted by and led the way for the flow of massive amounts of foreign investment and technology into manufacturing and urban infrastructure, which included substantial investments in electric power companies, tramways, and factories in Mexican cities. Railroads helped to create national markets for food and to connect Mexico to international markets for its silver, copper, coffee, and other exports...Railroads similarly linked and extended labor markets; for many Mexicans, working to construct, maintain, and conduct the railroad was their first experience with wages and led to their eventual incorporation into a growing and dynamic labor market that moved them back and forth along the railroad lines, from the U.S. border through northern mining enclaves, central textile regions, and coastal oil towns...working on the railroad provided valuable training with machines and industrial discipline...[Many] gained their first involvement with workers' organizations while working on the railroad." [51]

For others the railroad was the vehicle that transported them between their rural past and their new life in the city. According to a 1900 census, 66% of the total Mexico City population was born outside of the Distrito Federal, and a sizable number of the remaining were likely born in the DF and migrated to Mexico City. The character of migration to the City lends itself to a point Bookchin raises in The Third Revolution, that many of the upheavals of the revolutionary era were led by working people of peasant origin or who were removed by only one generation from village society. "Capitalism, in effect, had not fully penetrated into their lives or undermined their sense of independence. It was this kind of 'proletariat,' a class with one foot in the countryside and another in the city, that turned to revolution, if only to recover a sense of social rootedness, coherence, and meaning that was increasingly denied to them in the dismal shops and congested neighborhoods." [Bookchin, 14]

Many migrants came from Guanajuato, Hidalgo, Querétaro, Puebla, Michoacán, and Jalisco. Part of this migration was undoubtedly the rural-urban transition that is a fundamental piece of the primitive accumulation going on, yet it also demonstrates that that transition was not linear nor unidirectional, because the aforementioned states were actually densely populated with large urban areas. Some factors driving this migration from the central valleys of Mexico included "the expansion of large agricultural estates, high population density, and the decadence of traditional areas of mining and artisan manufacture in the face of new areas and forms of production." [53] So displacement from the land in rural areas often threw workers into diverse movements, moving in search of work from one rural area to another, from rural to urban, and from urban to urban. Efforts were continuously made by the emerging capitalist class and the state during the span of Mexico's colonial and early independence years to control this movement and enforce a discipline upon migrating laborers, with varied success.

So taking us back to Mexico City, census data suggests a strong presence of migrants with both urban and rural origins.

Middle Class ("Gente Decente")

At the end of the 19th century, Mexico City had a growing significance as the center of political and economic life for the consolidated nation state. Accordingly, a new elite and middle class emerged here. It entailed civil servants, army officers, teachers, and professionals like lawyers, doctors and engineers. Commerce often led to fortunes extending into finance and industry, especially for foreign-born merchants from Europe (mostly Spanish) and the U.S. Not all made it to the top of the commercial hierarchy, with many small shopkeepers and vendors struggling to maintain and often being pushed out of business by larger, better capitalized foreign-owned operations. Lear points out that the deterioration in the status of small shopkeepers meant that many either exploited their workers even harder, or they made common cause with their workers against the might of the large merchants. Many from the middle class would provide leadership and a base for political opposition against Porfirio Díaz at the time of the Revolution.

By 1910 the upper and middle class constituted about 22% of the city's population.

Urban Proletariat

Textiles and tobacco were the two main industries that underwent factory-scale production involving heavy machinery and large numbers of workers. Mexico City was not the most industrialized city in the country but it was an attractive location for capitalists because it offered the largest consumer market (in a country with a relatively weak market) and inexpensive and relatively experienced labor. The number of Mexico City factory workers rose 355% from 1895 to 1910 (at about 10,000), one-third of whom were women.

Textile workers tended to be country people from rural villages around DF, which had networks that helped feed the factories' labor force. Lear writes that, "As a result, workers in these towns would after 1910 occasionaly try to incorporate campesinos in their organizations or include demands for land in their petitions to government officials."

Important: Factory workers comprised only 4% of the Mexico City work force in 1910 (roughly the same percentage as the combined total of government employees and military men). Lear argues that the emergence of a factory proletariat in the city was important, it was neither numerically nor organizationally the most important sector of the working class.

A more influential dynamic than the introduction of modern factories was the reorganization of the traditional manufacturing crafts and a shifting divide between skilled and unskilled labor. Outside of textiles and tobacco, work tended to be reorganized around expanded, semi-mechanized workshops that relied heavily on the division of mental and manual labor. "Electrical power, new machinery, and new workshop organization incorporating unskilled workers into repetitive tasks resulted in large-scale production and the consequent displacement and deskilling of many traditional artisan groups." A similar process occurred in the U.S. but for Mexico (and for our purposes, Mexico City) this happened later and and in a much shorter period of time.

Small workshops may have been the numerical majority of manufacturing firms at the turn of the century, but close to 75% of all workers in manufacturing were employed in mid-large sized shops. Simultaneously, a few companies organized around large workshops came to dominate many crafts (i.e. shoemaking), such that there was a decrease in the relative importance of manufacturing employment in Mexico City by 1910.

Construction was one trade where the number of workers grew rapidly by 1910. "Skill levels varied from basic bricklayers to highly paid plumbers, but wages and literacy levels suggest that, overall, construction workers were among the least skilled of the traditional trades," and many were day laborers (jornaleros) rather than permanent workers. [69]

By the end of the Porfiriato, craft workers were important in the overall picture of labor in Mexico City, yet few were artisans in the classic sense of the word. "Craftworkers in 1910 were more likely to receive wages than to offer their goods on the market; shops were increasingly separate from their owners' homes; and ownership was increasingly based on capital rather than skill." Craft workers became more and more precarious. Machinery and migration had the effect of reducing the skill and cultural boundaries between trades, which facilitated involvement in working class politics and organizations that emerged during the Revolution.

At the same time, new skilled and semi-skilled occupations emerge such as electricity and electric streetcar workers, and mechanics, conductors and electricians for railroads and tramways. The importance of their work gave these new skilled workers an importance far beyond their numbers, because the could bring the city to a standstill in a strike. And because of the large numbers of workers in these jobs, they facilitated a high degree of consciousness among workers whose send of themselves as workers and their relation to the city extended beyond the workshops.

The basis for nationalism was laid among these sectors because until the revolution, top management and technical positions went mostly to foreign workers, and the industries themselves were often controlled by foreign capital. Lear argues that "much of the organizational initiative in Mexico City after 1910 came from these three groups: textile factory workers, skilled trade workers in rapidly changing industries, and strategic workers in new infrastructure and transport industries...[who together] comprised barely 12% of the labor force." [73]

Unskilled and Casual Labor

The majority of the city's population worked in unskilled manufacturing and service occupations. Most rural migrants were likely to be employed in these sectors. It is in this sector that we begin to see some of the outlines of the gendered division of labor and gender roles. In contrast to social ideals about the domestication of women, women made up 35% of the work force in Mexico City in 1910. The vast majority were restricted to unskilled, short-term work in manufacturing and services that were extensions of household tasks. This raises the contradiction of women's unwaged work in the home -- in part because in this case it shows that women in the home provided the "free" training to workers that the capitalist exploited -- that are explored in detail by Selma James and Silvia Federici, among others.

The clothing industry is telling of the decimation of skilled labor. The factory system had less impact than the division of production and the use of simple machinery which allowed for the reduction of highly skilled labor into separated aspects of production. By 1910, the number of seamstresses and dressmakers combined almost equaled the number of industrial factory workers in the city. Production was divided in other ways to pit women against one another. Commercials shops often employed a core of regular seamstresses on the premises and then during periods of high demand would get other women to cover the excess by working out of their homes. This had the efect of pitting primarily unmarried women (working in the shops) against married women or single mothers (working out of their homes) since the latter was often paid less and used by employers to undermine labor inside the shops.

Domestic workers constituted the largest sector of the working class in Mexico City both because of supply and demand. For middle class and even some working class families, a maid was a necessary sign of respectability. Most domestic workers had few options for work, and they were almost impossible to organize (though complaints by employers about their servants stealing and quitting indicates there was a level of resistance and rebellion among them).

Prostitution was another source of employment for women. Many prostitutes came from the countryside, were often illiterate and indigenous and young, often also working in various service work. Like domestic work, prostitution often represented a transition for women, a "common route of urban assimilation, [for] women who moved into the urban world of free time, expendable cash and freedom from moralistic family structures." [77]

Shifting census categories suggest a floating population of underemployed workers who moved from job to job depending on seasonal and economic cycles. The presence of tens of thousands of underemployed workers acted as a constant downward pull on wages and presented some obstacles to working class organization.

Many were unable to make ends meet, particularly after the recession of 1907, and Lear details some family strategies to deal with the precariousness of working class life. In most working class families, women and children entered the work force regularly. In many cases, extended family grouped together in one household to support the collective. Lear doesn't mention that surely women's unwaged reproductive work in the home was a vital factor to keeping the working class alive and able to report to work for the capitalist each day.

Lastly, on gender roles and women's labor. Lear writes,

"In a world marked by the ideology of separate spheres for men and women, for women to work outside of the private, domestic sphere presented a moral dilemma for many families. Parents, middle-class reformers, labor inspectors, and even the working-class press frequently saw factories and shops as centers of disease and moral corruption for women, particularly where men and women worked together. At the same time, some employers who depended on female labor...insisted that their factories were virtual finishing schools of useful skills and good behavior for young women. Just as important, wives or daughters who worked outside the house were a challenge to male authority over the family...If necessity often drove women into the work force, many...felt a certain pride in the income they brought to their family and enjoyed a freedom from traditional constraints on their activities. The city and its sources of work could fulfill dire family needs but also provide unprecedented opportunities for women, both independence from the demands of male-dominated family life and a new sense of female sociability beyond the traditional spheres of home, tenement, and community." [81-82]

Read More...

"Allow Me to Reintroduce Myself..."

So I've gotta get the ball rolling here again, after a long hiatus. I haven't been writing much and seeing an empty blog was getting pretty depressing, so I shut it down for awhile. But with some inspiration and support from close friends and a little bit of harassment from family and relevant faculty, I'm going to give this thesis blog another stab. I saw that Lance over at Exploring American Anarchism has been working on some of the same organizations and struggles in the Mexican Revolution as myself, which is also motivating.

So here goes...

Read More...

Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution

Alex Callinicos, Trotskyism
Christopher Z. Hobson and Ronald D. Tabor, Trotskyism and the Dilemma of Socialism

Originally applied in the Russian context, after 1917 this became generalized into a theory of revolution in underdeveloped countries. It rejects the general thesis that the bourgeoisie in the underdeveloped countries was able to play a revolutionary role. It also rejects a “two-stage” approach to revolution: where the first, “national-democratic” revolution expels foreign exploiters, followed by a second, proletarian-socialist revolution that brings to power the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is anti-Popular Front and anti-Menshevik/Stalinist strategy of bloc-ing with the nationalist wing of the bourgeoisie.

Trotsky’s emphasis was that while a particular country may be underdeveloped, it must be considered in the context of global capitalism. So the higher development of capitalism elsewhere mitigates the relative underdevelopment of another place. Russia, for instance, while undergoing intense, rapid industrialization, was able to import straightaway some of the highest technology and organization available at the turn of the 20th century, to the extent that it had some of the most impressive factories in the world by 1905. This combined and uneven development, the “drawing together of the different stages of the journey [toward socialism], a combining of separate steps, an amalgam of archaic and more contemporary forms” (Callinicos) of production, meant that the Russian proletariat, while a minority of the population, yielded a power and significance above and beyond its small size. Thus, according to Trotsky, it, and not the bourgeoisie, played the central role in the struggle against tsarism.

Trotsky believed the peasantry could only act as a national force under the leadership of an urban class. The peasant parties represented the hegemony of the urban bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie over the rural masses. Trotsky was isolated in this position until February 1917 when Lenin and the Bolsheviks adapted his theory of permanent revolution. In October 1917, he was won over to some of Lenin’s prescriptions for the necessity and type of revolutionary organization.

To clarify the differences with Stalin’s (and the Mensheviks’) two stage approach: this was founded on the belief that capitalism was a necessary historical stage that developed the means of production that would eventually provide the material basis for socialism. In countries that were underdeveloped, comparatively speaking, the two-stage approach assumed that the country must first develop along capitalist lines before the relations and means of production would be sufficiently mature. To do this meant to remove the fetters upon capitalism (old feudal relations, landed oligarchies, church, etc.) and establish a strong bourgeoisie in power.

Hence, in the underdeveloped countries, this approach argued, first there would have to be a bourgeois national revolution in which the national bourgeoisie would fight for power, throw out the imperialists, achieve national independence, and overthrow the feudal landowners. This would rely on the “bloc of four classes” where workers, peasants, intellectuals, and the national bourgeoisie would be allies. The task of the revolutionary (vanguard) party was to help the bourgeois nationalist parties take power.

Though Stalin would claim this approach was taken from Lenin, in fact Lenin argued that the national bourgeoisie was weak and cowardly and would ally with the tsar/ancien regime rather than face the power of the workers’ movement. Thus, Lenin said, the workers and peasants would have to carry out the bourgeois revolution against the bourgeoisie (Hobson and Tabor, 39). The tasks of the revolutionary party, in this setting, were to combat the bourgeoisie’s political influence over the workers and peasants.

Trotsky was not entirely in disagreement with other Russian Marxists on the question of revolution, in that he did believe that Russia was too underdeveloped to establish a socialist society. The revolution was to be permanent in two senses, then: it had to proceed without interruption beyond the bourgeois democratic stage; and it could not be limited to Russia alone, but had to occur in other countries (a counter-argument to Stalin’s “socialism in one country”) (Hobson and Tabor, 37).

Read More...

History, Civilization, Progress

Murray Bookchin, The Philosophy of Social Ecology: Essays on Dialectical Naturalism, pp. 147-183

Bookchin is “negating the negation”. In dismissing deterministic, patriarchal, and white supremacist notions of history, civilization, and progress, critics have gone too far in the opposite direction and opted for a modern relativism that leaves little possibility for understanding History, let alone constituting a revolutionary praxis.

What is History? The “rational content and continuity of events (with due regard for qualitative ‘leaps’) that are grounded in humanity’s potentialities for freedom, self-consciousness, and cooperation, in the self-formative development of increasingly libertarian forms of consociation.” (157) History is what is rational in human development. Humans have of course committed irrational acts, murderous atrocities, and inflicted all sorts of evil upon one another. Yet Bookchin distinguishes between human capacities and human potentialities. And is there a human “potentiality for evil”? Capacities for evil acts do not mean that human potentiality is constituted to produce evil and destructiveness. “Episodic capacities” are not the same as “unfolding potentialities.”

“If our views of social development are to be structured around the differences that distinguish one culture or period from another, we will ignore underlying tendencies that, with extraordinary universality, have greatly expanded the material and cultural conditions for freedom on various levels of individual and social self-understanding. By grossly emphasizing disjunctions, social isolates, unique configurations, and chance events, we will reduce shared, clearly common social developments to an archipelago of cultures, each essentially unrelated to those that preceded and followed it.” (162-163)

Bookchin argues there is a “legacy of freedom” or a tradition of increasing approximation toward freedom and self-consciousness. Civilization verifies this – it is the potentialities of History embodied and partially actualized. It consists of the material, cultural, and psychological advances that humanity has made. The “dialectic of freedom” has emerged and reemerged in recurring struggles for freedom that have expanded freedom and cooperation. There is also a “legacy of domination” yet this, Bookchin argues, is the realm of the irrational. That which defies rational interpretation remains an event, not History in the dialectical sense of the unfolding of humanity’s potentialities for freedom, etc. Progress is the advance of freedom over domination.

“The denial of a rational universal History, of Civilization, of Progress, and of social continuity renders any historical perspective impossible and hence any revolutionary praxis meaningless except as a matter of personal, indeed, often very personal, taste.” (167)

History is an ever-developing “whole”, but not in a predestined or predetermined sense. Nor are humans the tools of the “God of History” that mythically operates unseen and carries out the final self-realization of History. Humans are active agents who may or may not make real their potentialities. There may or may not be an “end of history”, a finality to the historical process, because “History forms its own ideal of [the notions of the rational, the democratic, the free, and the cooperative] at various times, which in turn have been expanded and enriched.” (168)

Read More...

Capitalist Development from Independence to the Porfiriato

Adolfo Gilly, The Mexican Revolution, Notes Part 1

Gilly traces the early foundation of the Revolution of 1910 to the development of capitalism in Mexico following its war for independence in 1810. Led by Miguel Hidalgo and José María Morelos, “the Jacobin wing of the revolution”, this was a class war, an agrarian revolt in gestation, which saw the army, the Church and the large landowners ally with the Spanish crown.

Shortly after, Mexico bore the brunt of the expansive thrust of U.S. capitalism, a close up with what others have termed primitive accumulation, when in 1848 the U.S. invaded and took possession of half of Mexico’s territory – some two million square kilometers comprising what is now Arizona, California, Texas, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. This theft of land was legalized by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in February of 1848.

Ten years later, Mexican liberalism [1], and the foundations of modern Mexico, emerged in the likes of Benito Juárez and his circle constituted out of sections of the emergent bourgeoisie.[2] This social base sought entrance into world trade and a restructuring of production and class relations inside Mexico which would free up capital and increase the exploitation of labor.

In 1855, the Ayutla Revolution brought the Liberal Party to power on a program of opening Mexico for capitalist development. In particular this meant a change in land ownership and control, with the intent that by freeing up “archaic” or “traditional” forms of land ownership and monopoly, this valuable resource could be better exploited for production and, importantly, a new layer of landless workers would be created who had little if anything to sell on the market but their labor power. So in 1856 the Liberals passed an act that prohibited religious and civil bodies from owning more land than they needed to carry out their functions. This targeted both the Church monopoly of land as well as indigenous collective forms of ownership. Other reforms expanded upon this tendency and were enshrined in the 1857 Constitution which Gilly calls the “juridical base of bourgeois national organization.” (p. 2)

An opposing conservative tendency arose in the form of the Conservative Party, which had its based in the clergy and the big latifundistas. They denounced the reforms and, with the support of Pope Pius IX and the French government, the 1857 Constitution. The conservatives fought to protect the old forms of land distribution, receiving assistance from invading French troops (under Napoleon III) in 1862 and 1863 who named Maximilian of Habsburg as Emperor of Mexico. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party received the support of the U.S.

Gilly argues that the rising Mexican bourgeoisie depended upon popular support and “Jacobin methods” in order to dismantle the institutions and structures inherited from colonial times. Hence Juarez’s faction based itself upon a national war and passed such measures as the 1859 nationalization of Church property, the separation of church and state. Such measures only concentrated agrarian property in the hands of the latifundistas. Once the lands of the indigenous communities were parceled up they could be bought at low prices or even seized by the big latifundistas (with no recourse for the indigenous owner, of course).

Northern Mexico developed differently in that it was always marginal to the Spanish colonial project.[3] It was less populated, and nomadic indigenous tribes resisted fiercely against the enclosure and imposition of new land policies, to such an extent that almost only small to medium sized land claims were viable, large claims being less so because of the security required to patrol and retain the land against said tribes. Hence, the north witnessed the rise of a rural middle class on ranches and medium-sized haciendas. The government also compensated surveying companies that would enclose the land and attract [foreign] settlers to work on it.

The quest for land led to the Yaqui War of the late 1870s and early 1880s and also contributed to new generations of peasant revolts, some influenced by the doctrines of utopian socialism and anarchism. Benito Juárez and Porfirio Diaz both advanced the violent crushing of these revolts.

Notes
[1] Here there is a need for clarification of the term liberalism, which is forthcoming. The term “liberal” is sometimes confused in this context, particularly considering that in the early 20th century one of the most important anarchist organizations in Mexico would carry the name Partido Liberal Mexicano (PLM -- Mexican Liberal Party).
[2] This emergence was surely not a one-way process, yet Gilly does not elaborate upon what popular forces were emerging from below with potentially antagonistic visions for a new Mexican nation.
[3] With the notable exception of mining (silver, among other resources) which Gilly doesn’t make note of here.

Read More...