P. 1
A Marxist Anaysis of the Mexican Revolution of 1910

A Marxist Anaysis of the Mexican Revolution of 1910

|Views: 11|Likes:
Published by dersimli

More info:

Published by: dersimli on May 22, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/12/2014

pdf

text

original

A Marxist Anaysis of the Mexican Revolution of 1910 Part One The following is a slightly edited translation of an article that

first appeared in Espartaco No. 12 (Spring-Summer 1999), publication of our comrades of the Grupo Espartaquista de México. In 1999 Mexico’s ruling bourgeois party was the Partido Revolucionario Institucional, whose seven-decade reign would be broken the following year with the election of Vicente Fox of the right-wing Partido Acción Nacional (National Action Party—PAN), since succeeded by the PAN’s Felipe Calderón.

The Mexican Revolution of 1910 was a long and bloody process that lasted almost a decade, during which more than two million people—almost 10 percent of the population—lost their lives. The gigantic peasant insurrection against the dictator Porfirio Díaz and its bloody suppression by the bourgeois reaction of Venustiano Carranza and Alvaro Obregón are events that had a profound impact on the country and have delineated the features of the Mexican bourgeois regime to the present day. For decades, the Mexican bourgeoisie has benefited from using the symbolism of the Revolution of 1910 to legitimize its capitalist order of exploitation and oppression, promoting a pervasive nationalism that continues to be the main ideological basis for the political subordination of the working masses in the city and the countryside.

The 1988 split in the ranks of the governing Partido Revolucionario Institucional (Institutional Revolutionary Party—PRI), which later led to the formation of the Partido de la Revolución Democrática (Party of the Democratic Revolution—PRD) of Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, reinforced the old nationalist symbols that had been successfully used for more than 70 years by the decaying PRI to derail and repress class struggle. Subordinated to this nationalism, the reformist left, which feeds illusions in the bourgeois PRD, tries to convince the workers that only “Yankee imperialism” or the current PRI president are their enemies, and not the entire Mexican bourgeoisie as a class. Thus, the bourgeoisie, the PRD and their pseudo-leftist followers try to prevent the workers, youth and poor peasants from struggling against capitalist exploitation, and the working class from turning toward a common internationalist struggle together with the powerful working classes of other countries, especially in North America.

The nationalism encouraged by the bourgeoisie, which seeks to tie the exploited to their exploiters, intoxicates the masses with the lie that there is a “progressive and patriotic” sector of businessmen, politicians and the armed forces that can unite with the exploited and save the country from bankruptcy. The nationalist left, within and outside of the PRD, also helps to encourage class collaboration through the illusion that it is possible to solve burning democratic and social questions within the framework of capitalism. Nevertheless, this confidence in “progressive” sectors of the bourgeoisie and in the possibility of pressuring and reforming the capitalist state is a fatal illusion and a dead end for the working class and the oppressed in the struggle for their emancipation from capitalism.

The counterrevolutionary destruction of the Soviet Union in 1991-92 had a tremendous impact in the semicolonial countries of the so-called Third World, which have become even more subordinated to the imperialists and their bloodsucking financial institutions. In growing competition with its rivals in Europe and Japan, North American imperialism continues through its NAFTA pillage to transform all Latin America into its backyard and its supplier of raw materials and semi-slave labor for its manufacturing plants. The generalized discontent over the effects of NAFTA has been shown in increasing social turbulence in Mexico, weakening the control of the PRI and helping to feed the growth of new bourgeois oppositions like the PAN and the PRD.

The hegemony of bourgeois nationalism in the organizations of the workers movement, in the corporatist unions as well as the “independent” ones, is the main reason why there has been no authentic proletarian challenge to the capitalist order. Thus, while most of the unions are still captives under the iron control of the PRI bureaucracy and its enforcers, the leadership of the “independent” and dissident union movement (from the UNT [National Union of Workers] and STUNAM [National University workers] to the SME [electrical workers] and the CNTE [teachers]) feeds illusions in the bourgeois politicians of the PRD or even in “democratic” sectors of the PRI. Nor is it uncommon for meetings of these unions and student marches to end with the singing of the national anthem, which is the anthem of the bourgeoisie. In this sense, the 1994 EZLN Zapatista rebellion, which arose in protest against the annihilation of indigenous villages by the imperialist rape of NAFTA, also reinforced the old nationalist ideology. The petty-bourgeois leadership of the EZLN, subordinate to the PRD, asks *then PRI president+ Ernesto Zedillo to “lead by obeying” and demands that the national anthem be sung and the flag honored at all the unions and assemblies they visit. This is the same flag that is carried by the Mexican Army that murders indigenous people and that was saluted by [former PRI president] Díaz Ordaz after he ordered the massacre of hundreds of students in Tlatelolco [in Mexico City] in 1968!

In intransigent opposition to bourgeois nationalism and its pseudo-left apologists, which block the development of conscious, decisive class struggle by the working class, the Grupo Espartaquista de México seeks to bring the program of communism to the vanguard of the workers and youth who want to struggle against the exploitation and oppression of capital. The GEM is dedicated to forging an internationalist Leninist-Trotskyist party to lead the proletariat to power. We struggle together with our comrades of the Spartacist League/U.S. and the Trotskyist League/Ligue Trotskyste of Canada, seeking to mobilize the powerful, multiracial North American proletariat against the imperialists and the Mexican bourgeoisie and in defense of all immigrants and the oppressed. As part of the International Communist League, we struggle to reforge the Fourth International, world party of socialist revolution.

The Permanent Revolution

it is necessary for it to sweep away the ideology of the bourgeoisie and draw its own lessons from the historical event that exploded in Mexico at the dawn of the 20th century.” Thus the revolution passes directly to socialist tasks. and with it all those oppressed under capitalism. In the face of peasant rebellion and a combative working class. the Mexican bourgeoisie justifies the social backwardness. supported by the peasants. this alliance must take the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. as the Communist Manifesto declares. thus preventing them from carrying out the fundamental tasks of bourgeois revolution—democracy. But for the working class to be able to free itself from the exploitation of capital. because of the combined and uneven development of the world economy. without the existence of a “Chinese Wall” between the bourgeois and proletarian phases. as we intervene to change . anti-indigenous racism. The democratic tasks of the bourgeois revolution.With its nationalist. the proletarian state must inevitably make “despotic incursions into the rights of bourgeois property. machismo and homophobia. then. To redirect the dissatisfaction of the masses. rural poverty and illiteracy of millions of workers and peasants. would be condemned to suffer new bloody defeats at the hands of the bourgeoisie. relying on the willing help of the church. each and every one of these goals would directly threaten the political and economic control of the capitalist class. Without a materialist understanding of its own history. the bourgeoisie’s arrogant North American imperialist masters portray Mexicans as a weak and lethargic people. In Trotsky’s perspective. blaming the victims themselves for the ravages of their exploitation. without stopping at any arbitrary “stages. anti-Semitism. can be resolved only by an alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry. requiring the overthrow of capitalism in at least several advanced countries. Against all this garbage. That is why we communists base ourselves on the central role of the proletariat and fight for the working class to arise as the leader of the oppressed masses in the cities and the countryside in order to overthrow the bourgeois order. paternalistic ideology. agrarian revolution and national emancipation. Trotsky was unequivocal that the peasantry cannot play an independent political role. Because the proletariat is the only consistently revolutionary class. In carrying out the democratic tasks of the revolution. the working class. the communist program explains that the backwardness and grinding poverty in the semicolonial world are not the result of some “cultural” cause but instead come from powerful historical factors in the development of capitalism. the bourgeoisie also incites rotten xenophobic hatred. For their part. as Lenin put it. The fundamental task of the Leninist-Trotskyist vanguard. unleashing the terror of groups like the Ku Klux Klan and border vigilantes as well as the racist death penalty.” or. using all types of disgusting racist stereotypes. without classes) can only be achieved on an international scale. the bourgeoisies in backward countries are strongly linked to imperialist interests. Marxism maintains that there can only be one dominant class in each state. The advent of a genuinely socialist society (that is. We communists base our struggle for workers revolution on the program of permanent revolution developed by Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky.

The Spanish mercantile class used it for the consumption of luxury goods.” The Spanish monarchy did everything in its power to keep the . Torquemada’s Inquisition also proceeded with brutal terror against the Jews.) The monarchy unified the church and the army under its banner. The reactionary course of the bourgeoisie was clearly shown in the revolutions of 1848 in Europe and especially in France. The victory over the Arabs consolidated the power of the Spanish monarchy as well as the Catholic church. fighting to raise its consciousness to the level required by its historic tasks. and the Spanish monarchy used it to purchase aristocratic titles and vast landed estates. father. But this plunder failed to strengthen commercial capital. which played a central logistical role in the struggle against the Moors. etc. Marxism also pointed out that after this radical period the bourgeoisie stopped being revolutionary. the Spanish state experienced a brief flowering from 1500 to 1550. ceding power to the forces of reaction—all because of its fear of the working class. the elimination of feudal constraints on markets and industry. Thus. The classic bourgeois-democratic revolutions that broke out in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries had concrete results: the liberation of the peasantry. A popular saying from that time captures something of this social reality: “Grandfather. such as the English Revolution of Cromwell in the mid 17th century. a nobleman. and especially the Great French Revolution of 1789. a beggar. son. The Absolutist Spanish State and the Colonization of America There was a time when the bourgeoisie played a revolutionary role against the old feudal order and the obscurantism of the Middle Ages. marked by the taking of Granada and the expulsion of the Moors from Spain. The Spanish church was the pillar of the Inquisition. is to take this understanding and the revolutionary program to the working class. After that. one sees the European bourgeoisie repudiating its original political ideals. Marxism came to this generalization after analyzing the results of several bourgeois revolutions. and. Spain and Portugal are a special case. Spain was the first great unified. which was a reaction against modernization and the Protestant Reformation of Calvin and Luther.history. with the conquest of the Americas. absolutist monarchical state to arise in Europe after the Reconquest in 1492. because they lagged behind the bourgeois development experienced in several other European countries during those centuries. above all because of the vast plunder wrenched from the American colonies. where the bourgeoisie bared its counterrevolutionary teeth when it brutally smashed the proletariat. national independence and unification. which was now ascendant in the rest of Europe. the Inquisition and colonization went hand in hand. which is the archetype of the classic bourgeois revolution. (This is one of the origins of the anti-Semitism that is deeply rooted in Latin America and in the nationalist and centrist left of today. a merchant.

the development of a more diversified economy was achieved. Belgium and Germany. owing to a catastrophic decline of the indigenous population in Mexico. political and cultural life. new sources of royal income that were not much different from the various Spanish provinces. during the colonial period that lasted three centuries (1519 to 1821). (This mixture of several elements is not exclusive to colonial Mexico. For the Spanish Crown. for example. In a short time. the main function of the monarchical state became that of a simple mediator. we cannot speak of a capitalist Mexico in the Marxist sense of the term (contrary to the assertions of some pseudoMarxist authors like André Gunder Frank and Nahuel Moreno. Everything passed through the monarchy. the result of the brutal exploitation of the encomienda [peonage] system. capitalism was essentially a mode of production. . With the impossibility of continuing to extract more tribute. something that was also achieved by the English colonists in North America. etc. replacing the ancient Mexicas as collectors of tribute. extracting tribute from the colonies to purchase articles produced in other locations by the manufacturing capital of Britain. parasitic despotism with decadent feudal elements and an embryonic mercantile capitalism.) for the domestic market and for commercial export. for whom the conquest and colonization of America was fully capitalist). was accompanied by a great influx of Spanish immigrants. What was implanted in the New World was a mixture of tributary. That was why Mexico could not reproduce the pattern of booming commercial and industrial capitalist development that appeared in the most advanced areas of Europe. The Spanish conquerors in the Americas soon became collecting agencies for the throne in Madrid. one centered on mining. which tried to interfere with and control all aspects of economic. the textile industry and agriculture (dyes. other sources of exploitation appeared. For Karl Marx. sugar. All this was woven together and organized by the Spanish Crown in the world market of mercantilist capitalism.nascent Spanish bourgeoisie and feudal lords weak and in debt to the throne. After the brief flowering it experienced through consolidating as a national state. Holland. France. the new colonies in the Americas did not represent commercial or settlement expansion but rather tribute-paying protectorates. famine and disease. and coffee. not a network of overseas commerce (something that had already existed since the time of the Phoenicians). But this extraction of tribute did not last long. The fact that some elements of mercantile capitalism can be perceived in the Spanish colonies in that era does not mean that those societies were already organized on the basis of capital. Thus. Slowly. which fell from some 16 million to about a million—in only two generations! The annihilation of the indigenous population. Spain began a downward spiral toward stagnation and decadence.) Colonial domination by a backward Spain stifled Mexico and Latin America at a decisive stage of capitalist development.

This type of Spanish protectionism was consciously maintained as a counterweight to the development of a creole bourgeoisie in Mexico. and this was. Many hacendados complained about a law that prohibited indigenous Mexicans from putting themselves more than five pesos in debt. As Mexico’s economy developed. who intervened between the owners of the means of production and the laborers. the main beneficiary of the revolution for . during the colonial period the income of the wealthy criollo [Creole: Mexican-born of Spanish descent] landowning hacendados was several times greater than that of their alter egos in Peru. Over time. The name given to colonial Mexico. The Creoles began to demand the right to export agricultural goods as well as free importation of manufactured products and other prerogatives.. Mexico City rivaled Spanish cities in size and wealth. This regulation blocked the transformation of indigenous Mexicans into debt peons—i. the tribute. achieved. especially silver. creole landowners and artisans and the middle and lower hierarchies of the church and the army clashed against the Spanish viceregal power that mediated and blocked their access to international commerce and political power. For example. His place was taken by the hacendado. and with him went all vestiges of the encomienda. semi-slave laborers who would toil on large agricultural estates where production was completely for export. who extracted riches from the colony to enjoy them in the metropolis.The War of Independence of 1810 By the end of the 17th century. The rule of the Crown and its viceregal bureaucracy constituted not only a system of external dependence but also an internal form of rule. A revolution was needed to help it exit the historical stage. historian Enrique Semo points out: “The despotic-tributary system did not cease to exist by itself. Mexico was nevertheless the richest of the Spanish colonies. “New Spain. the Mexican political economy developed beyond mining. responsible for more than 60 percent of the precious metals sent to Spain from the Americas.e. By the middle of the 17th century.” was not an accident. unlike in the rest of Latin America. This first Mexican revolution (1810-1821) was an attempt to resolve the conflicts between the nascent creole bourgeoisie and the stifling government of the parasitic Spanish monarchy. The task of the turbulent years of 1810-1821 was to destroy it. The Spanish official who controlled down to the last detail a society divided into conflicting corporations. to a large extent. In his Historia del Capitalismo en Mexico (History of Capitalism in Mexico). who opposed any local enterprise that went against his own or the Crown’s interests had to go. the repartimiento [system of forced labor]. and this is a fact forgotten by those who argue that the revolution for independence contributed little or nothing to the development of the Mexican nation. This contradiction was the material basis for the War of Independence that broke out in September 1810. and so on.

independence.” all from the Marseillaise. and a weak conservative center based on the church. the largest landowner and also the largest moneylender in Mexico. but rather the removal of all vestiges of tributary despotism with its bureaucratic centralism. His slogan was “Independence. for the separation of church and state. From a demographic point of view. There were constant clashes between the regional liberal elites. the push to declare independence in Mexico was accelerated by the fear on the part of the creole propertied classes and the church of the Napoleonic invasion of Spain in 1808. when Agustín de Iturbide. At the same time. Its language may be found in the struggle for independence. Thus. among other things. news of the French Revolution arrived in Mexico very early.) But the characteristics of the economic systems in both countries were very different. (The population of Mexico was actually a bit larger.S. 1846-48 The next 40 years of Mexican history were full of revolt and internal struggle. By “religion. colonialist domination and rape of Mexico. unity and religion!” By “unity” he meant unity with the Spanish monarchy—temporarily overthrown by the episodic revolution of 1820 in Spain. War with the United States. His letters include phrases like “the sacred fire that inflames us. who was assigned to smash the rebellion. who initiated the insurrection. . the army and the state administration. among other reasons because of his appetite to anoint himself as emperor of Mexico.S.” and “days of glory. at the beginning of the 19th century Mexico and the U. the natural representative of large private property and local particularism who—in conflict with the church—had to make his interests prevail over those of other social classes. were almost the same—each had about six million inhabitants. there were 56 presidents in Mexico! It was during this time that Mexico suffered the first intervention by the United States.” As in all the Spanish colonies in the Americas. went over to the side of independence.” “sons of the fatherland. roused the indigenous masses with his famous Cry of Dolores. Polk in 1846—an event that presaged the current U. tending to appropriate indigenous lands (which were often controlled directly or indirectly by the church). and the victory of large semifeudal landed property with its parochially oriented caciquismo [cacique means local boss+. “The revolution of 1810-1821 did not mark the victory of bourgeois trends over feudal modes. ordered by President James K. independence from Spain ultimately had a distinctive smell of counterrevolution.” he meant defense of the privileges of the Catholic church. with slogans such as: Long live Religion! Long live our most holy mother of Guadalupe! Down with the usurping government! Long live America! Hidalgo was an educated man and very familiar with the writings of the French Revolution. which tried to institute the radical democratic constitution of 1812 that called. although strangely refracted. But separation from Spain did not come until 1821. Between 1821 and 1861. The priest Miguel Hidalgo.

and the constant interference of the European powers. wherein he wrote of the Mexican war: “Generally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not. seeking to impose the monarchy of Maximilian of . Juarism established secular education and some social services. At the end of his life he wrote his memoirs. Civil War’s prominent Union general Ulysses S. the northern border of Mexico was strongly attracted to the economic orbit of the U.S. In this context. forced the sale of the church’s great landed estates and also abolished many of the collective properties of the indigenous peoples.. Thus they looked to the north of Mexico for new slave territories. Under the pretext of the Mexican debt and with the cry of “Religion and Privileges!”. Juárez established the separation of church and state. sharpened the conflicts that had dragged on since Independence. More than 90 percent of the region’s commerce was with that country. excommunicating Juárez himself. over the issue of slavery. that of Santa Anna. Thus. which dominated the weak federal government. From the Vatican. feared that the territories acquired from France in the 1803 Louisiana Purchase would tip the balance of power. without the plebeian mobilization that took place during Independence. The Reform aimed for the bourgeoisie to be able to acquire property on a capitalist basis.S.S. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies. as we have seen. This second Mexican revolution differed from its predecessor because it had more of the features of a movement of the dominant and semidominant classes fighting against one another. the U. and the South would be in a subordinate position. The Southern plantation slaveowning class. For myself. undertaken by President Benito Juárez in the name of radical bourgeois ideology and influenced by the principles of the French Revolution.S. in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory. U.S. colonists in the province of Texas. the War of the Reform (1858-61) broke out. Grant fought in the war against Mexico as a lieutenant.S. The U. France and Britain intervened militarily in Mexico in 1863.The political economy of the United States was a transplant of the developed commercial capitalist system in Britain. I was bitterly opposed to the measure. Under the pretext of “independence” for Texas. Political pressures on Mexico had already been seen with the settlement of U. capitalism was very dynamic. Pope Pius IX angrily railed against Juárez and declared “null and void” the laws of the Mexican government. whereas that of Mexico. and to this day regard the war which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. intervened to seize half of Mexico’s territory from one of its many governments. but not so all of them. issued out of Spain’s backwardness and tributary despotism.S. The war of pillage that was waged against Mexico also had much to do with the conflict between the North and the South in the U. exactly the opposite of the Mexican economy.” The War of the Reform and the Porfiriato The war with the U.

more than one-fourth of Mexican land was the property of foreigners.S. which had already recognized the Juárez government. Civil War. U. and the imperialist powers were deeply involved in the Mexican economy. This new rapacious intervention was possible because of the proximity of the U. To guarantee that the imperialist corporations and the weak Mexican bourgeoisie would benefit from the exploitation of natural resources. setting them against each other in distributing investment concessions. instituting the socalled “peace of the tomb”: immediate military repression of any peasant or popular rebellion. the climate of instability not only continued but was aggravated by the war’s bloodletting and a boycott by reactionary forces. at the head of a liberal alliance. had not been in the middle of a civil war. the French had large investments in textiles and amassed large amounts of Mexican government debt in the form of bonds. His conservative opponents. Thus. Díaz’s peculiar motto was “Little politics and much administration. abruptly took power. and although at one point he was pushed into the north of Mexico.S. Madero “Unleashes the Tiger” . Nevertheless. as well as 90 percent of industrial capital. Juárez declared war against the invaders. The British were involved in the petroleum industry in particular.” And to restore “order” in turbulent Mexico. Yucatán was basically a satellite plantation of the International Harvester Company. General Porfirio Díaz. the Mexican economy. But with the world financial crisis at the beginning of the 20th century. railroads and the great cattle haciendas in the north. suffered a tremendous blow. including the church. Juárez became a national hero. sustained by the export of those materials. Díaz threw out the Jacobin ideology of Juárez and achieved an understanding with the church. marked by a precipitous fall in the prices of raw materials. France and Britain would not have intervened in Mexico if the U. The result was that toward the end of his rule. France and Germany. he finally won the war in 1867. were discredited in the eyes of the masses because of their collaboration with the invaders. Maximilian was captured and executed. while the Germans tried to dominate the banking system.S. the Díaz regime promoted the construction of a vast system of railroads. capitalists were particularly concentrated in mining. in 1876.S. and the Díaz dictatorship became extremely isolated and discredited. The coup was planned in close collaboration with U.Habsburg. The new Porfirian cabinet tried to shape a Mexican bourgeoisie that might enrich itself by riding on the coattails of the imperialists. It was the age of the ascendancy of modern imperialism. installing a military dictatorship that would last more than 30 years. Britain. The North. in spite of the prestige Juárez gained. interests. preferred to remain “neutral” for fear that France and Britain might recognize the Confederate slave power in the South. jail and exile—including the massive exile of entire populations such as the indigenous Yaqui and Mayo of Sonora—to the death camps in Yucatán or Valle Nacional in Oaxaca. For their part. Díaz tried to do a balancing act between the United States.

The agrarian question—the land hunger of millions of peasants—was revealed as the most burning and explosive question of the revolution. Díaz soon capitulated to Madero and the northern revolutionary wave. nor did he grant any concessions whatever to the working class. the most representative figure in this stage of the revolution against Díaz. unleashed an explosion of land speculation and growth of agricultural production for export. economy. Francisco I. both domestic and imperialist. which was powerfully reinforced by massive popular protests in Mexico City. Madero had no intention of altering social relations in the countryside. worsened by corruption. they felt threatened by the decrepit central government of Díaz. which was most closely linked to the U. Like a good bourgeois politician. Representing the bourgeoisie in that region. With his extensive network of favoritism and cronyism. trapped between popular discontent and reactionary forces. Río Blanco. But Madero’s timid campaign to bar the president from running for re-election soon opened the door to a series of peasant revolts that swept like wildfire through the country.) and peasant restlessness swept the country. he was heard to say in reference to Madero: “I hope he can tame the tiger he let out of the cage. the Madero regime. where the majority of peasants had no land. When Díaz left Veracruz to go into exile. in power for a little more than a year. gigantic government debt and a fiscal policy that was intolerable for the population. Meanwhile. By the end of 1912. This development was a direct consequence of imperialist investments and the rapid expansion of the railroads during the Porfiriato. Madero emerged victorious and anointed himself president.S. Madero. Madero’s unfulfilled promises quickly provoked conflicts with the forces of Emiliano Zapata. as unrest could no longer be contained by the dictator. Madero left the military apparatus of the old regime intact. a wave of combative strikes (Cananea. In the years immediately preceding the revolution. The intra-bourgeois conflict between Madero and Díaz had indeed opened the tiger’s cage. characterized by a marked particularism and regional parochialism. In the elections that followed the fall of Díaz.” The tiger he was referring to was the immense peasant uprising. who controlled the state of Morelos. The Mexican Revolution of 1910 began as a classic Mexican uprising by five northern governors. which. various strikes broke out in industry. was already in deep crisis. Certainly.S. came from one of the richest families in the country.In 1910 Mexico was an overwhelmingly agrarian country. the dictator had become an obstacle for the bourgeoisie and the object of popular hatred. At the end of Díaz’s long reign. that were determined to re-establish “order. . in a coup plotted from the U.” In February 1913. and the essence of his program was a colorless liberalism. by opening up the interior of the country. the country was shaken by a profound financial crisis. etc. one which wanted to compete with companies from the United States.

the victorious anti-Huerta forces immediately fell apart. which supplied him with arms. while Villa remained silent. The limited demands for more democracy and land distribution in the villages. In this regard. Huerta’s coup unleashed popular anger and energized the peasant forces of Francisco Villa in the north and the guerrillas of Emiliano Zapata in the south. The more conservative bourgeois wing of Venustiano Carranza and Alvaro Obregón. . was more adept than Villa. Lacking sufficient supplies to hold on to Mexico City. a new and acute phase of the Mexican Revolution began. like the Plan of Ayala. Along the same lines. The Mexican Revolution was led mainly by spontaneously arising peasant leaders or by regional military leaders. With the definitive split between Villa and Zapata on one side and Carranza and Obregón on the other. which lasted almost a decade. were insufficient as a national political program and a means for Villa and Zapata to hold on to power in the urban centers. Obregón’s forces occupied Mexico City on 15 August 1914.S.S. the Carrancistas withdrew to Veracruz.S. as well as their withdrawal. although not for long. they had state power within reach. the Americans later began to support the Constitutionalist forces of Venustiano Carranza and Villa. Partly because of Huerta’s connections to Britain. which had taken up arms against the new dictatorship.. petty-bourgeois peasant perspective of Villa and Zapata meant that these radical leaders did not know what to do when. and as such. Veracruz had been occupied by the U. The victorious peasant armies of Zapata and Villa took the capital in December 1914. after the Convention of Aguascalientes in November 1914. it is notable that during this conflict.S. It is significant that when the U. forces evacuated the city. representing the northern bourgeois elites and the radical petty bourgeoisie. was limited by that ideology. which welcomed them with great jubilation (including many workers who months later would be joining Carranza’s “red battalions” to put down the rebellion). not wanting the enmity of the U. since 21 April 1913. it is interesting to analyze the occupation of the capital by Villa’s and Zapata’s peasant armies.Embassy. The Taking of Mexico City and Bourgeois Reaction With the fall of the Huerta dictatorship in July 1914. In a military race. Madero was overthrown and shot by General Victoriano Huerta. The regional. It was a movement based on the peasantry. Carranza made an impassioned nationalist speech and criticized them harshly for the occupation (although it was designed to benefit him). he obtained a large reserve of arms and provisions as the U. This is despite the fact that they had arms and the overwhelming sympathy of the population. took Veracruz for the first time. none of the warring factions created a political formation—a party—with any consistency. upon taking the capital. In an agreement Carranza made with the occupiers.

but both the market and the railways are in the hands of the cities. when in October 1917 the . as a class. conscious of the political weakness of the peasant armies. a characteristic that can be extended to the Mexican peasantry: “The peasantry is dispersed over the surface of an enormous country whose key junctions are the cities. who had the principal mobile forces of the Convention. in decisive battles in the north and in El Bajío [lowlands of central Mexico]. bourgeois reaction caught up to Villa. proletarian and socialist—solution. He was still a symbol for the peasantry. was able to reorganize and pursued the forces of the Zapatista Convention until finally defeating them. The upper ranks of the Catholic hierarchy in the capital certainly were a different animal from those humble village priests who were won to Zapatismo. (It was a very different story on the other side of the world. Villa was massacred and his body decapitated. On 10 April 1919. Finally. By the end of 1915. who had retired to private life and become a well-to-do hacendado in Chihuahua. which was a bastion of the most reactionary elements of the ruling class in Mexico and an enemy of the poor peasantry. When he supported the local bourgeois Adolfo de la Huerta against Obregón’s group.” 1939 An anecdotal but illustrative example of this inability of the peasantry to assume power in its own name happened during a meeting of the Villa-Zapata Convention in Mexico City. they certainly did not touch the church. the peasantry is heterogeneous in its social relations as well: the kulak [rich peasant] stratum naturally seeks to swing it to an alliance with the urban bourgeoisie while the nether strata of the village pull to the side of the urban workers. nor could they have on their own. Zapata was ambushed and slaughtered. to lead a revolution. Villa’s powerful División del Norte had been dismantled. The bourgeois wing of Carranza. the program to use these latent forces for a victorious revolutionary—that is to say. and the only answer the Convention could come up with was to pass the hat to collect a bit of money for them! In other words. The economic link between the provinces is created by the market and the railways. This was one more nail in the coffin of the peasant rebellion. the peasantry inescapably falls into political dependence upon the city. A large group of poor women was demonstrating against famine in front of this assembly. When Villa and Zapata occupied the capital. In seeking to tear itself away from the restrictions of the village and to generalize its own interests.Trotsky explained the political inability of the Russian peasantry. Villa and Zapata did not have. Obregón effectively avoided the capital in order to confront Villa.” — “Three Conceptions of the Russian Revolution. In July 1923. Under these conditions the peasantry as such is completely incapable of conquering power. The peasantry itself is incapable of even formulating its own interests inasmuch as in each district these appear differently.

Flores Magón and his Partido Liberal Mexicano (PLM) certainly presented the most radical program during the Revolution. but not nearly as modern or concentrated as in western Russia. During the Porfirian dictatorship. which eventually had to hide in the U. pushed the group to the left. Besides electricians and streetcar drivers.S. found a revolutionary leadership in a young and resolute working class and the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky.. . shoemakers. 973 (4 February). But its ideas and proclamations were extremely contradictory. etc. which was immediately crushed after an agreement between Díaz and Madero was reached.000 workers but was very dispersed and atomized throughout the country. in the textile industry and various artisanal trades. tailors. The anarchism of the Flores Magón brothers had emerged as a radical-liberal tendency in the ranks of the bourgeois opposition to Porfirio Díaz. anarchist groups founded the Casa del Obrero Mundial. Magonist anarchism did not represent the historic interests of the working class. published by the Grupo Espartaquista de México. Consequently. the majority of the list consisted of guilds such as bakers. During the Revolution. on the railroads. Also. translated from Espartaco No. and it began to build workers’ cells. anarchist publications such as El Hijo del Ahuizote [Son of the Scourge]. When the Mexican Revolution broke out. anarchism (imported from Spain) flourished and gained authority in the young working class. There was also some urban industry.gigantic Russian “peasant bear.” hungry for land and justice. A Marxist Analysis of the Mexican Revolution of 1910 Part Two This part concludes this article. the proletariat consisted of some 600. From 1906 to the 1910 uprising led by Francisco Madero. Revolución and Regeneración helped to organize sectors of society unhappy with the regime. shows the stillrudimentary composition of the proletariat. Díaz’s constant repression of Ricardo Flores Magón’s group. founded only in September 1912. Part One appeared in WV No. bricklayers. the anarchists focused their strategy on the formation of guerrilla cells in the north. The list of organizations affiliated with the Casa del Obrero Mundial [House of the World Worker]. They even established a utopian anarchist “Socialist Republic of Baja California” in 1911. because of the limited migration of European workers. particularly in the mines. In spite of its influence on the incipient unions. 12 (Spring-Summer 1999). such as textiles. leather workers. carpenters. it had more to do with a type of petty-bourgeois “utopian socialism” that reflected the desperation of the artisans and the middle classes ruined under the Porfiriato. drivers. even calling for the abolition of private property and for no support for the bourgeoisie. socialist thought was not as widespread here as in Chile and Argentina in the Southern Cone of the hemisphere.

subservient to the bourgeois regime. a handful of deserters from Trotskyism who were expelled from our organization in 1996. General Obregón. . the pages of Regeneración and Magón’s correspondence were filled with bitter recriminations against the working class for being responsible for its destiny. who went from the ranks of the PLM to being governor of [the northern state of] Nuevo León and a mouthpiece for the bourgeois forces of Venustiano Carranza. But the majority of the anarchist leaders. the anarchist bureaucrats of the Casa del Obrero seem like confused..The acid test of the Mexican Revolution showed the total bankruptcy of anarchism and its inability to draw an independent class line. Here it is interesting to refer to the position of the centrist Internationalist Group (IG). Mexican Regional Workers Confederation). inciting the backward consciousness of the working class. wooed the Casa del Obrero on behalf of the mistrusted landowner-general Carranza. passive victims of Obregón’s intrigues. When Obregón appealed for the formation of Red Battalions of workers to fight Villa. the Casa del Obrero leadership accepted without complaint Obregón’s order to dissolve their organization when it was no longer useful to him. Some anarchists in the Casa del Obrero (such as Antonio Díaz Soto y Gama) went over to the ranks of Zapatismo. who in 1990 led the counterrevolution and presented the East German workers state as a gift to imperialism. As we have written. meanwhile. In the end. The IG writes: “The anarchists withdrew into passive opposition to all sides. The traitorous collaboration of the Casa del Obrero anarchists. Villarreal. the union bureaucrats finally agreed (despite continued opposition in the ranks). reached agreement with Carranza and engaged in demagoguery to convince a sector of the working class to participate in Carranza’s infamous “red battalions” *armed forces arrayed against peasant insurgents].” —The Internationalist... The IG attempts a retrospective embellishment of the anti-revolutionary role of anarchism which. Most of these anarchists would later have careers as union bureaucrats in the new Confederación Regional Obrera Mexicana (CROM. anarchism showed its complete bankruptcy during the Mexican Revolution. April-May 1997 In the IG’s centrist laundry room. The IG uses the same lying description of “paralyzed” victims that *IG leader Jan+ Norden used to clean up the image of the Stalinists of the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany). mobilized it to actively support the suppression of the revolution under the Carranza’s orders. who exchanged their “direct action” discourse for the demagogic “class struggle” offered by Carranza in his 1913 Plan de Guadalupe. guaranteed “social peace” in the capital for Alvaro Obregón while he pursued Pancho Villa. such as Antonio I. With their petty-bourgeois perspective.

protectionist vision in its program. . The anti-Chinese chauvinist poison went hand in hand with the moth-eaten anti-Semitism propagated in Mexico since the Inquisition. as demonstrated by an electricians general strike in Mexico City in 1916. in which the historian exposes the visceral hostility of the Villistas toward Chinese immigrants.” Years earlier.” It was Villa and the northern governors who took anti-Chinese chauvinism to its ultimate consequences. the desolation. League of Socialist Unity). the 1906 PLM Program stated: “Generally willing to work for the lowest pay. 1 May 1998). heirs of the political chameleon Nahuel Moreno. and everything is going well. Let us not give in to whining and sentimentality in the face of this spectacle of desolation and ruin. shock the peoples who are lethargic with the narcotic of flags.Magón wrote to Gus Teltsch in 1921: “Man is a very stupid animal. One can see this brutal aspect of the Villista troops in Friedrich Katz’s welldocumented biography Pancho Villa. the anarchist PLM went so far as to define a chauvinist. the hunger. the Chinese is a great obstacle to the prosperity of other workers. he thinks he lives in the best world. 201 (undated) Even earlier. and the Liga de Unidad Socialista (LUS. which led him to sordid extremes like the anti-Chinese chauvinism of his party. with paltry aspirations. 238. But it is pathetic that today reformist groups like the Partido Obrero Socialista (POS. and to those who wish to hear us. to wake up. venerate Flores Magón and refer to him uncritically as a “fighter for the liberation of the proletariat” (El Socialista-Umbral No. Let us accept with fortitude this result of human stupidity. Magón even celebrated with strange justifications the imperialist slaughter of the First World War: “Millions of men dead? Even better! The people are such imbeciles that they need these terrible blows. The lack of an authentic revolutionary internationalist leadership during the Mexican Revolution would be felt again when the working class began to radicalize against Carranza. these formidable shocks.as long as he has a crust of stale bread to put in his mouth.. His competition is disastrous and we must avoid it in Mexico. here is the result of your obstinate refusal to heed our good counsel…. One can understand the limited anarcho-liberal vision of Magón and many of its unresolvable contradictions. It is no accident that today’s “Chinatown” in Mexico City occupies only half a block of Dolores Street. let us say: Brothers. heirs of the pseudoTrotskyist Ernest Mandel. Regarding Chinese workers. whom they plundered and murdered in the cities Villa’s forces occupied.. the ruin. submissive. which along with others promote nationalism. fatherlands and religions!” —Regeneración No. Long live the war! Let the horrible spectacle of death. anti-immigrant. Socialist Workers Party).

or under peasant leadership for that matter. The land was completely stolen by the victorious bourgeois faction: almost all the land seized in the revolution was returned to the landowners or appropriated by elements of the new military caste.” This can be seen from the beginning in the Zapatista demand that “the land belong to the tiller”—a demand for which hundreds of thousands of peasants rose in rebellion and died. And if this is not yet the case? Then the struggle for national liberation will produce only very partial results. and the shackles of imperialism continued to tighten on the country. The United States was able to increase its control over the Mexican economy. thanks to Stalin’s betrayal. (Such a return of lands to the owners of the landed estates did not occur. still socially weak.The Petty-Bourgeois Vision of the Nationalist Left The Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920 is a clear example of one of those revolutions in which the proletariat. what Trotsky wrote is completely applicable to the Mexican Revolution. giving rise to the present situation.” As subsequent history would show. With the bloody triumph of Carranza and Obregón’s bourgeois wing.” Later. there is the issue of imperialism and national liberation. the proletariat of which is insufficiently prepared to unite the peasantry and take power. was incapable of acting as an independent contender for power and carrying out its revolutionary tasks. many workers and anarchist leaders of the “red battalions” who returned from fighting the peasant armies were shot as soon as they began to demand that . nor even under the restorationist monarchists that succeeded him. results directed entirely against the working masses. ferocious repression was unleashed in the cities. is thereby incapable of bringing the democratic revolution to its conclusion. Not surprisingly. he continued: “A backward colonial or semi-colonial country.) Besides the key agrarian question that the Mexican Revolution failed to resolve. in the Second Chinese Revolution of 1925-1927 at the hands of the bourgeois-nationalist Guomindang of Chiang Kai-shek. Generalizing from the experience of the Chinese proletariat’s bloody defeat. for example. Leon Trotsky wrote in The Permanent Revolution (1930): “Under the conditions of the imperialist epoch. the national democratic revolution can be carried through to a victorious end only when the social and political relationships of the country are mature for putting the proletariat in power as the leader of the masses of the people. which could not be resolved under bourgeois leadership. whose results were partial and “directed entirely against the working masses. in France under Napoleon after the Great French Revolution.

began to use nationalism and an opportunistic anticlericalism as ideological battering rams in order to justify its continuing repression of workers struggles and regional uprisings of land-hungry peasants. after carrying out repression. This had its most well-known intellectual expression in the works of José Revueltas. mainly as an escape valve for the pressure of peasant unrest that had been set loose by the church in the reactionary clerical Cristero movement. The Cárdenas regime was able to subordinate the most important workers unions to the PRM (predecessor of the PRI. class-collaborationist line of Stalin’s popular front. later. which had been decreed in 1862. This was thanks to the treason of the Stalinist Mexican Communist Party (PCM. To achieve its consolidation.” He then characterized the Revolution of 1910 as a successful bourgeois-democratic “anti-feudal” revolution.. those of the onetime pseudo-Trotskyist Adolfo Gilly. a dissident member of the Stalinist PCM. Lázaro Cárdenas reinforced the army and also founded the hated anti-riot squad known as the “granaderos. A common practice of this new regime was to first send the army against strike picket lines and then. founded in 1919). While opening schools and initiating some public works projects.. Influenced by the Stalinist schema of “revolution in stages” and “socialism in one country” and adding his own special philosophical gibberish. which is false. used its influence in the unions to support [the reformist] Lombardo Toledano and [quintessential pro-government bureaucrat] Fidel Velázquez. . Institutional Revolutionary Party). as Trotsky wrote. offering pieces of land so that dissatisfied workers could become small peasant landowners. which gives the bourgeois state the role of inspector and supreme arbiter in the life of the unions. The reformist left failed to resist the increasing popularity of the caudillo Cárdenas and capitulated to the nationalism that was in vogue. following the traitorous. which.” the fundamental instrument of the bourgeoisie for breaking strikes and beating students. and. Revueltas extolled the terrible backwardness in the Mexican countryside in order to paint the economy during the Porfiriato as merely “semi-feudal. The old death penalty. which had support among the petty bourgeoisie and intellectuals. In 1938. was restored along with other brutal punishments to be applied against the workers movement. directed entirely against the working class. Cárdenas also used the land distribution as a way to deactivate workers struggles.Carranza’s promises be kept. Lázaro Cárdenas gained popularity with the masses and gave a strong boost to nationalism.over their leaders’ corpses. to concede a few of the workers’ demands. the leadership of these unions fell into the hands of the corporatist “charro” bureaucracy—labor lieutenants of capital and the bourgeois state in the workers movement. the bourgeois regime of Carranza’s successor Obregón. This type of political practice. With these measures and because of his occasional friction with imperialism. the nationalist regime of General Lázaro Cárdenas decreed the expropriation of the petroleum industry and carried out some land distribution. was crystallized in the famous Carrancista Constitution of 1917. Thereafter.

because the bourgeois-democratic ideology must widen its field of criticism.. carrancismo is actually more radical. Not only does Carranza promise from the beginning to establish a new organic legal statute for the country. including indigenous people. solely by its presence. 1938 This “objectivist” vision of the weight and role of the working class is typical of the revisionist current of Michel Pablo. The millions of landless peasants. more ‘advanced’ than maderismo. There is an immanent force in the proletariat that on its own becomes evident and leads to results within history.” Revueltas’ anti-Marxist revisionism is accompanied by his position on the role of the working class: “Even when the proletariat does not carry out a leadership function in a bourgeois-democratic revolution like that of 1910. as we have noted. at the end of his life. it is impossible for the national bourgeoisie to carry a democratic revolution to victory and solve such burning issues as the agrarian question.) Trotsky polemicized strongly against the false position that the proletariat could effect revolutionary changes “solely by its presence” or its combativity. Revueltas considered joining the Pabloite United Secretariat of the late Ernest Mandel. which he claimed to have found in Carranza’s forces. Revueltas writes a defense of Carranza: “Thus. on its own. .” —José Revueltas. Revueltas feverishly looked for a “progressive” sector of the bourgeoisie. but he also announces the beginning of the social revolution.In the imperialist epoch of capital. “This occurred with the proletariat in the Revolution of 1910. it owes this more than anything else to the working class. And if this bourgeois-democratic revolution has such an advanced and progressive character. which developed in the ranks of the Fourth International in the 1950s. Inspired by the Stalinist concept. Trotsky affirmed that the fundamental condition for the proletariat to intervene as a revolutionary force is that it has the consciousness of its historical tasks and a communist leadership. it provokes a series of historical and revolutionary consequences. who embellished the meager achievements of the Mexican Revolution.. throughout the country are the strongest possible refutation of the Stalinoid vision of Revueltas. (Perhaps that was why. In his 1962 essay “Un Proletariado Sin Cabeza” (“A Proletariat Without a Head”). “La Revolución Mexicana y el Proletariado” (“The Mexican Revolution and the Proletariat”). Revueltas was hostile to this Marxist-Leninist perspective.. in which he supposedly differentiates himself from the PCM.

attracted by its “mass influence” and nationalist rhetoric. Gilly finds that the bourgeois government of Lázaro Cárdenas in the 1930s took up socialist principles once again. that “our tendency has taken up again the key point of Revueltas’ break with Stalinism. the Mexican Revolution could have continued.The Stalinist position of seeking a nonexistent “progressive” sector of the bourgeoisie. and its vision of the proletariat as a mass whose weight is revolutionary in and of itself. Gilly accepted a key tenet of permanent revolution—that the stage of classic bourgeois revolutions had ended a long time ago— only to write that in the Mexican Revolution the peasantry played the socialist role that the working class could not undertake. broke with the PCM to found the so-called “Liga Espartaco” in 1960 ended up joining the PRI. the Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores (PRT. Gilly and the Pseudo-Trotskyist Left The book La Revolución Interrumpida (The Interrupted Revolution) by the former pseudo-Trotskyist Adolfo Gilly is the bible of the revisionist left.” is the Partido Obrero Socialista. mainly. was consistent with the type of party that Revueltas wanted to build: not a Leninist vanguard party but rather an amorphous party of “the whole class. the core of Revueltas’ critique of the Stalinist PCM was to reproach it for not having succeeded in becoming a party of “the whole class. subordination to Cardenismo and the current capitulation of the left to the PRD [the bourgeoispopulist Party of the Democratic Revolution]. This supports the bourgeois myth of the revolution that never ends and therefore justifies. The POS writes: “While Madero and his followers planned to throw Díaz out of power to establish. For Gilly.including even to socialism.” In reality. For the Morenoite POS as well. Thus. from a supposedly Marxist viewpoint. also inspired by Gilly’s “interrupted revolution. which liquidated into the PRD and the Zapatista EZLN. Gilly became an official in the current [Mexico City] government of Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas. Revueltas never transcended his Stalinist political framework.. Revolutionary Workers Party). It is no accident that the majority of members who.” In fact. . a mass party. In a merely formal way. the Mexican Revolution was an “interrupted revolution” because the radical peasant leaders like Zapata and Villa were assassinated. The same fate awaited his old Mandelite party. a bourgeois-democratic system based on the principle of no re-election and effective suffrage.” that is. A current archetype of the reformist left’s capitulation to the influence of bourgeois nationalism. Taking his liquidationist logic to its ultimate consequences.. with Revueltas. if Zapata and Villa had not been assassinated. This summary of Revueltas’ work merits a correction in reference to what we wrote in the first issue of Espartaco (Winter 1990-91). while the revolution was “temporarily” interrupted.

which would finally destroy the bourgeoisie as the ruling class and establish a workers and peasants government. November 1992 Like Gilly. “Anarchists. If the peasantry was. it is logical that these reformists called for a vote for the EZLN in 1994. serving as the POS’s red loincloth to cover its true nationalist and reformist program for the class struggle..” —El Socialista No. and not always agreeing on how to achieve it. Nothing could be further from the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution! The POS view of the Mexican Revolution is in accordance with its current reformist program and the patriotic language that fills the pages of El Socialista. and at that point another dictatorship began to take shape: the priato [decades-long rule of the PRI+. and because of the objectives that inspired the Zapatista and Villista armies. It is a fact that has been preserved in the historical memory of the masses. the Mexican peasants were placing themselves at that moment in the vanguard of the world revolution. 182.. It is sufficient to see what they wrote the previous year in referring to the capture of Mexico City by Zapata and Villa in December 1914: “Without knowing it. Zapatistas and Villistas understood this desire perfectly well. could have been the equivalent of a revolutionary party of the working class in the struggle for socialism.. and that the Magonista anarchists.. today they welcome without embarrassment any class-collaborationist front that emerges in this country—from its joint campaign with the PRD to “struggle” against NAFTA (El . which in essence would have socialist objectives. since it demonstrates the possibility that an organized and decisive people can put the bourgeoisie and the government in check and take power in this country. according to the POS.” —El Socialista No.if they had just had a little more time.. in spite of the social conquests expressed in the Constitution of 1917. “With this unprecedented event.hundreds of revolutionaries worked clandestinely to overthrow the dictator and generate a social revolution.. nevertheless fought in the same trench. because the working class did not lead the revolution and because there was no revolutionary party to lead it. the Mexican Revolution fell into the hands of the national bourgeoisie.. the POS considers that the peasantry was—even without knowing it—the vanguard of the world revolution.. November 1993 These last references to the lack of a revolutionary party and the working class are merely demagogic. Nevertheless. 166. Zapatistas and Villistas were the vanguard of the world revolution. an event that we must always remember. And if for the POS the anarchists. “the vanguard of the world revolution” in 1914. along with Zapata and Villa. the Mexican Revolution seemed to be headed toward a socialist revolution.

and its current petition campaign begging the Senate and the House of Representatives not to privatize the electric industry. allowed the PRI to govern for decades with the politics of “the carrot and the stick. a 1988 split from the POS. ‘workers’ and farmers’ government. League of Workers for Socialism). As Trotsky noted in the Transitional Program: “This formula. POS-LUS. although unstable. that it would be a “Provisional Workers and Peasants Government” that would convene this assembly. September-October 1998). converting it into a call for a government to reform the bourgeois state. several municipal governments around the country and the states of Baja California and Zacatecas. Calling here for a constituent assembly— a new parliamentary body—only serves to sow more illusions in the bourgeois PRD. the purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat would be to convene.’ first appeared in the agitation of the Bolsheviks in 1917 and was definitely accepted after the October Revolution. differ from their parent party only because they want the end of the PRI to come through the advent of a “*revolutionary constituent+ Assembly that develops out of the overthrow of the hated PRI regime” and struggles against imperialism (Estrategia Obrera No. the CND [pro-EZLN National Democratic Convention].a bourgeois parliamentary body! Trotsky never proposed the constituent assembly as a possible organizational form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The fact that the LTS fetishizes bourgeois democracy is clearly seen in its assertion. El Barzón [a middle-class movement of bank debtors]. for example. November 1993) to its political support for the EZLN.” 1998) and in its treasonous calls on the bourgeois state to intervene into the unions. and today it governs Mexico City.Socialista No. .” The PRD has shored up illusions in this discredited bourgeois parliamentarism. who distort the Bolshevik call for a workers and peasants government. 225.” But for the LTS.. 182. the POS called for “imprisonment without bail for union leaders who sell sweetheart contracts to businesses” (El Socialista No.. The LTS and IG: Centrist Confusionism The centrists of the Liga de Trabajadores por el Socialismo (LTS. etc. The conscious workers movement should sweep away these types of fake “socialist” parties. The illusion of the POS that the bourgeois state can be reformed is shown in its call for the “democratic restructuring of judicial power” (“Draft Program of the Socialist Coalition. 7.. This is an invention of the fake Trotskyists. In the final instance it represented nothing more than the popular designation for the already established dictatorship of the proletariat. in the same issue of its newspaper. But in Mexico the semi-bonapartist bourgeois regime adopted a thin cover of bourgeois democracy which. In 1997. February 1997).

such as giving land to the peasants. it jumbles together workers with other oppressed sectors. ends up joining the Cárdenas government. the peasantry and the working class—the only class with the social power and consistent historic interest to lead the fight against the rule of capital. However. to conclude the anti-capitalist revolution begun in 1910 (interrupted by the triumph of the Carranza wing over the peasant armies of Villa and Zapata. The IG takes this centrist confusionism onto the historical plane. the Mexican Revolution could have continued and eventually become a .’ This is an enormous historical falsification. 2. like the LTS. the LTS accepts Gilly’s revisionist schema by which the Mexican Revolution. the LTS winds up kissing his hand: “The PRT. far from raising a consistent Trotskyist strategy to fight for the program of the second Mexican Revolution. national independence to break the yoke of imperialism and elementary democratic demands. The Internationalist Group is not very different from the LTS. imposing the reactionary Constitution of 1917 on the masses). “anticapitalist” in its inner dynamic. the LTS writes: “The main tasks of the Revolution of 1910 that were left unfinished. was “interrupted” by the fact that Villa and Zapata were murdered. leaves the door open to the implication that if Zapata and Villa had not been murdered. reformist in deed—frequently borrow small pieces of the genuine Marxist program to hide their real appetites. this is nothing more than a fig leaf to hide the LTS’s illusions in the bourgeoisie. the party of the northern ranchers who assassinated the radical peasant and plebeian leaders Emiliano Zapata and Francisco Villa.The centrists—revolutionary in word. April-May 1997 Here we see how the IG. In truth it is the party of the firing squad against the revolution. Trying to polemicize against Gilly and his old party. December 1996). Trying to distinguish itself from Gilly on the Mexican Revolution. In spite of its Trotskyist pretensions.” —The Internationalist. this regime has presented itself as the ‘party of the Mexican Revolution. can only be fully and effectively accomplished under a government of the victorious working class” (Estrategia Obrera No. Thus. The IG’s rejection of the perspective of permanent revolution is evident in the way it obscures the differences between the petty bourgeoisie.” —Estrategia Internacional No. 10. and put an end to the revolution before it could become a full-fledged social revolution. every time the IG tries to paraphrase or put into practice the perspective of permanent revolution. November-December 1998 (emphasis ours) In the end. the IG finally bows to him: “In its successive incarnations (PNR-PRM-PRI).

however. leaders and activists from El Barzón and popular urban organizations. As we explained in Espartaco No. the subordination of the proletariat to the bourgeoisie has been particularly open. because of the absence of a proletarian vanguard with a program for workers revolution. following the defeat guided by the Comintern in China in 1925-27: .” The IG consciously uses this vague. the UCD. The dominance of this nationalism explains why mass reformist workers parties did not develop here and the pseudo-socialist left never overcame its marginalization in the workers movement.. classless phrase only to distinguish itself slightly from its pseudo-Trotskyist cousins. But like good centrists. its mystification of the peasant leaders and its defense of the anarchist bureaucrats of the Casa del Obrero Mundial are not isolated errors. the IG presents as conclusive proof a paragraph from an article in La Jornada (2 May 1997).” As Trotsky himself explained in his devastating “Critique of the Draft Program of the Communist International” (printed in The Third International After Lenin). UNTA and CODUC. In its insistence that a popular front exists in Mexico. In Mexico. ex-CNC members. also peasant organizations such as CIOAC. there is a popular front in Mexico!” This jumble that the IG makes of the proletariat and the peasantry with organizations of renters and bank debtors recalls the old Stalinist concept of a “bloc of four classes.“fully developed social revolution.” In spite of the IG’s demagogic references to Trotskyism. In the leading places.” the IG’s rejection of permanent revolution becomes even clearer in its attempt to discover a nonexistent popular front around the PRD of Cárdenas in order to capitulate to this bourgeois formation.. a popular front is a bourgeois formation that ties the reformist organizations of the working class to the bourgeois parties. the only way to complete the agrarian revolution and liberate the country from the yoke of imperialism. with the union movement directly tied to the bourgeoisie through bourgeois nationalism and its corporatist shackles. With its frenetic passion to dilute the proletariat in an amorphous mass of “discontented sectors. It consists of leaders of university unions. it writes: “The Mexican Revolution was frustrated. which reports: “The Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) yesterday released its final list of candidates for the House of Representatives to fill the seats assigned to the party based on the proportion of votes for the entire country. In the same article. above all.” And the IG fervently concludes: “Yes.. 10 (Autumn-Winter 1997). which it uses as a lying argument that the Spartacists “abandoned” the struggle against the PRD. the IG tries to cover its tracks with apparently orthodox formulations. more than 50 percent are not PRD members. the SNTE and the FAT.

Forge a Leninist-Trotskyist party! For new October Revolutions! . not the one which can and will bring about the socialist revolution. by acting as a tribune of the people. The task we face is. abandoning his proprietor psychology. where the oppression and enslavement of women are strongly rooted and are buttressed by nationalism and the church. Only then will the working class be able to take the correct path toward victory.” January 1931+. The struggle for the liberation of women is especially important in a society like Mexico. the proletarian revolution cannot triumph unless the working class wins the confidence of women workers..” —“Revision of the Agrarian Programme of the Workers’ Party” (1906) Against the efforts of the fake socialists and centrists who embellish bourgeois democracy and the current level of consciousness of the working class.. we communists struggle for the political independence of the proletariat to advance the cause of socialism. This will happen in Mexico by building a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party to sweep away the deep nationalism in the workers organizations that poisons and divides their struggles and to break the chains of the bourgeois state’s corporatist control of the unions—a legacy of Cardenismo. but we have to remember that it is the movement of another class.“Those organizations which in capitalist countries label themselves peasant parties are in reality one of the varieties of bourgeois parties. and it is from the point of view of permanent revolution that we must evaluate the Mexican Revolution of 1910.. Every peasant who has not adopted the proletarian position. transferring power to the hands of the most resolute class. The revolutionary-internationalist task Trotsky refers to is still before us today. The celebrated idea of ‘workers’ and peasants’ parties’ seems to have been specially created to camouflage bourgeois parties which are compelled to seek support from the peasantry but who are also ready to absorb workers into their ranks. as Trotsky noted.” Or. An essential part of this struggle is winning the sectors oppressed under capitalism to the program of workers revolution. which afterwards applies this power for the abolition of all classes” *“The Revolution in Spain. “a succession of social revolutions. as Lenin once expressed it. With a large percentage of the proletariat made up of women. urging the proletariat to organize separately from the peasantry: “We stand by the peasant movement to the end. especially but not exclusively in the northern part of the country in the maquiladoras. will inevitably follow the bourgeoisie when it comes to fundamental political issues.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->