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...

Gomez-Quiñones on the PLM

So I’ve been working on narrowing the focus of my thesis so as to make it a bit more manageable to finish. Since I have an interest in revolutionary organization and libertarian politics, I’m adjusting the thesis to tell the story of the Mexican Revolution through an in-depth look at the Partido Liberal Mexicano (PLM – best known for being led by anarchist Ricardo Flores Magón). There’s certain limitations with such a study: the philosophical limitations of anarchist analysis, the organizational shortcomings of the PLM itself (and anarchist organization historically), to name just two.

Yet despite these, or maybe because of these, I feel like a lot can be gleaned from such a study. What’s more, the PLM was active from about 1900 to the end of the Revolution, which makes it a very useful organization through which to trace the development of the wider political and social climate, what pertinent organizational questions developed over time and through struggle, what were the politics and social forces behind the counter-revolution against the popular democratic elements at the grassroots, and much more.

I picked up Juan Gomez-Quiñones’ Sembradores Ricardo Flores Magón y el Partido Liberal Mexicano: A Eulogy and Critique in this turn towards the PLM. It’s an older text, from 1973, but still useful. He raises a number of arguments regarding the efficacy and problems that the PLM faced as a revolutionary organization, which are briefly listed below:

a. The PLM was not a fully developed revolutionary party; it did not have a stable mass membership or a fully developed set of tactics; did have a revolutionary ideology and was a proto organization of revolutionary organizers.

b. Anarchism in general was most successful subjectively in ideals, criticism, and heroism. Its failure was that it was theoretically poor and tactically bankrupt (“its record of revolutionary-organizational failures is matched only by Trotskyites.” p. 12). Anarchist recruits heavily drawn from social elements increasingly marginalized in a changing society, particularly those in transition from agrarian to semi-industrial production – social outlaws, the misfits, the declasse petite-bourgeoisie, los destripados.[1]

c. Yet The PLM contained intellectuals and quasi-industrial urban elements as well as some artisans, and to a lesser degree involved campesinos. Thus in Mexico and the U.S. Southwest, despite its agrarian myths and emphasis, PLM’s appeal was to "modern elements" and not to the social elements that were being superseded.

d. Three or so layers to PLM organizers/members: 1) a large layer composed of Chicanos and Mexicanos who were sympathizers and periodically active, coming mainly from the lower middle class, artisans, laborers; 2) local cores of leadership, mostly Chicano, district organizers, chapter officers, local journalists who were transmitters and interpreters of PLM policy -- all usually active for extended periods of time; 3) the binational leadership, mostly Mexicano, who were educated (both formally and informally), full-time organizers/theoreticians who developed policy and cross-border solidarity.[2]

e. Regeneración (one of the main newspapers published by the PLM) was pivotal for maintaining the vibrancy, the communication, and the spirit of the organization. The paper was how locals knew what was going on in other locals; how they could see party interpretation of events; how their activity and successes could be known to others. When the paper would arrive, groups often formed and the literate would read to those who couldn't read. Discussion and debate would last for days. It was also pertinent for recruitment and spreading the word about the work and ideas of the PLM.

f. Regeneración reflected the process of the movement in Mexico and the experience of radical exiles in the U.S. From 1910 on a radicalization was taking place, the principal motto changed from “Reforma, Libertad y Justicia” to “Tierra y Libertad”.

g. In January 1911 the PLM put out a manifesto calling for direct expropriation and redistribution of land by the people; urged women’s participation in the revolutionary process. Yet politically and economically the 1911 manifesto was naïve and not analytical or viable. The beliefs in spontaneous united action were exhortations and not a viable program for revolution.

h. Problems of organization, strategy, and political analysis marred the Baja California offensive in 1910-1911. It was not only one more failure of the PLM, but also a costly political mistake. The motivations for the attack included the PLM's rejection of bourgeois nationalism and international boundaries (the PLM was carrying this out in part from the U.S.), class solidarity, and multiracial struggle. Baja was isolated and was sparsely inhabited, thus there was a political vacuum, unlike most of the rest of Mexico where there existed competing efforts at establishing political hegemony. Further, an attack in Baja would be a direct assault on the holdings of foreign companies, which were a dominant force shaping Mexican economic and political life. Baja was easily accessible by land and sea. Its takeover was also conceived as a means for securing a base for extending revolution to other parts of Mexico and for establishing a model for anarchist society [propaganda of the deed].

i. The PLM was marred by factionalism, ideological and personal, and the long list of splits over the years had a debilitating effect on the leadership of PLM (its consistency, its talent, etc.).

Notes
[1] Gomez-Quiñones doesn’t explain how the U.S. was also an exception to this characterization, particularly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when anarchist organizers found a good deal of support and popularity for their ideas and methods among the industrial working class.
[2] As can be seen within these layers, it'll be necessary to provide a larger explanation of why and how the PLM came to have a bi-national membership, how the U.S.-Mexico border and exile played into this, and what advantages and problems such a constitution presented.

Read More...

From Mexico to Palestine, With Love

It's been difficult indeed to get work done these past few weeks. Life always seems to interrupt plans, especially when it comes to school work which I admit is rather low on my general list of priorities. As of late, the Israeli invasion and barbarous attacks on Gaza have kept me preoccupied and very, very angry. It's been amazing and exciting to see the size and types of demonstrations that have broken out around the world, and in the spirit of solidarity I wanted to share the details of some actions that took place in Mexico.

My Word is My Weapon reports that at the Festival de la Digna Rabia in Mexico City Subcomandante Marcos and the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN) offered their solidarity with the Palestinian people facing down one of the most well-funded and highly trained militaries in the world. Meanwhile, Narco News reports that some clashes occurred between members/supporters of Asamblea Popular de los Pueblos de Oaxaca (APPO) and the municipal police of Oaxaca in front of the U.S. consulate there:

"The announcement of the Israel invasion of Gaza provoked world-wide pro-Palestine demonstrations, among them a protest march of a small number of adherents to the Asamblea Popular of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO), who on Saturday, January 3, marched from the neighborhood of Siete Regiones to the office of the American consul.

The USA’s consular office is located on the main tourist pedestrian street. The front of the building is now spray-painted, and when criminal charges were filed, the charge was defacing property. The “scene of the crime” is pictured in the accompanying photos. I suppose that prompt (illegal) police action came about out of fear of a major protest among tourists, (more of whom are European and national Mexicans, than are Americans), in front of the consular office. (As happened when the US invaded Iraq)

Before the APPO protests against the Israeli invasion could get well underway, the Municipal Police of Oaxaca arrested nineteen protesters, with unjustified roughness, according to accounts published by APPO members present, including those from the anarchist group Vocal, the Casota (a Crespo Street house previously raided by police on December 8, 2008 ), and members of the socialist and communist parties. The protesters were taken to barracks of the State Police, located in the town of San Bartólo Coyotepec.

Later reports state that some were beaten, and their belongings stolen.

As word of the arrests circulated, a crowd of APPO supporters soon appeared at the police quarters, and staged a demonstration and meeting outside its doors. The police responded by spraying tear gas onto the more than seventy people present. Among the meetings’ leaders were directors of Section 22 of the National Education Workers Union (SNTE) , including its secretary Gabriel Lopez Chavez. Also present was the ubiquitous Flavio Sosa Villavicencio."

For more, go here. Protests were also organized in a number of other Latin American countries.

Read More...