💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarchist-federation-the-mexican-revolution.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:59:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Mexican revolution Author: Anarchist Federation Date: 2010 Language: en Topics: Mexican revolution, Mexico, Ricardo Flores MagĂłn, Zapatistas, magonismo Source: Retrieved on 3rd September 2020 from https://libcom.org/history/mexican-revolution Notes: Appeared in No 77 of Organise! magazine of the Anarchist Federation
This year marks the 100^(th) anniversary of the Mexican Revolution.
Organise! investigates this extremely important and much-misunderstood
event.
Mexico in 1910 was a land where an emerging working class was adopting
radical forms of organisation and struggle, where the indigenous peoples
were still continuing their resistance against three hundred years of
rule initiated by Spain, and where the bourgeoisie itself was attempting
to develop and consolidate its power against the establishment
institutions of the old regimes and the Catholic Church.
The regime directed by Porfirio Diaz represented the interests of the
small group of rich owners of vast agricultural estates, and in addition
served the interests of foreign capital, including that of the USA. It
was opposed by various groups within the liberal bourgeoisie who wanted
a national revolution to institute bourgeois democracy. This agreement
was at first led by Madero and Carranza. In addition Carranza
represented a group of landowners in northern Mexico who had been
excluded from the regime. In addition there was the movement around the
Magon brothers, which was evolving in an increasingly anarchist
direction, a workers’ movement to a lesser or greater extent influenced
by the Magonistas, and strong rural movements, around Emiliano Zapata in
the south and Pancho Villa in the north.
The aging Diaz, in power for 34 years, announced his impending
retirement which started off the period of unrest. The bourgeois
opposition advanced a candidate to the Presidency and pushed it through,
rather than giving in to the customary compromise with the regime that
was frequent in Mexico. The opposition turned to mobilisation of the
masses to help this come about.
Throughout Mexico conditions were wildly divergent. There were still the
free villages based on traditional Indian ways of organising, where land
was farmed on a collective basis, there were the labourers on the big
estates and in the timber industry in the jungles, who were virtually
slaves, there were the cowboys and ranchands and in the north and the
small farmers . Discontent had been slowly building long before the bid
of Madero for power. The free villages were increasingly under threat,
the big estates were expanding, propelled by the development of mills
and the development of the sugar cane industry.
Madero was a typical modernising member of the bourgeoisie, whose aims
were solely the departure of Diaz and the introduction of democracy. He
now made himself popular with a promise of land reform and had the
financial backing of several Mexican and American capitalists, as well
as relying on his own personal fortune.
There was the movement led by Ricardo Flores and Jesus Flores Magon,
which had a much longer record of opposition to Diaz. They had founded
an opposition journal Regeneracion in 1900 and soon formed the PArtido
Liberal Mexicano ( Mexican Liberal Party) which essentially advanced a
programme of civil rights. Gradually, under the influence of Ricardo,
this party orientated itself towards the indigeneous free communities
and the poor peasants. The Magon brothers were forced into exile in the
USA., whilst maintaining contact with PLM members in Mexico.
In exile Ricardo met the American anarchist Emma Goldman and established
a friendship with the Spaniard Florencio Bazora, a friend of the Italian
anarchist Malatesta. Links were formed with the Socialist Party of
America and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). The PLM, despite
its continuing to retain the same title, started to transform itself
into an anarchist communist organisation. The Magonistas began to
smuggle Regeneracion into Mexico and massive agitation took place among
the workers and peasants.
The PLM attempted two insurrections, in 1906 and 1908, both repressed.
For their part, the USA interned some of the PLM leadership in 107 for
conspiracy and violation of the laws of neutrality between Mexico and
the USA. When Madero called for an uprising against Diaz on 20^(th)
November 1911 the PLM mobilised its forces for an uprising. They were in
favour of a tactical alliance on the ground with the Madero forces
against Diaz, but were categorically against a political alliance with
them. Indeed, the PLM hoped to win elements of the Maderistas over to
more radical positions. Unfortunately the Maero uprising failed, and it
was only in late December that the movement renewed itself. PLM forces
under Praxedis Guerrero crossed the border and marched through the state
of Chihuahua. The PLM rose up in nine other states in Mexico,
orchestrating joint military activity with the Maderistas and inflicting
big defeats on the old regime. In Baja California (see the separate
article) the PLM seized Mexicali and this deeply disturbed the regime.
The PLM hoped in the long run to expropriate the big landowners there,
but in the meantime, forced them to hand over large sums of money. The
PLM , in addition, hoped to use Baja California as a base from which to
support other PLM units.
PLM units gained many victories, in contrast with the poor military
record of the Maderistas. Support internationally began to grow for the
PLM, with many socialists, syndicalists and anarchists supporting their
cause.
Thanks to Silva, a PLM guerrilla commander, Madero returned to Mexico
from the States , but on the following day, declared himself commander
in chief of the insurgent forces, and after another PLM commander came
over to his side, arrested Silva for refusing to recognise his
authority. The situation was compounded by the split between the
leadership in exile in the States , clearly anarchist communist, and
some of the PLM membership in Mexico, not as politically developed, and
leading to compromises with Madero. For his part Madero denounced PLM
militants to both the US and Mexican governments, and profited from lack
of communication to peddle the myth that the two movements were in
alliance. This destroyed PLM unity, leading to splits towards Madero.
Madero had 8 leading Magonistas arrested in Chihuahua and 147 members of
their units were disarmed. At the same time a campaign of slander began
against the PLM on both sides of the border. On the American side they
were portrayed as mere bandits, on the Mexican side they were portrayed
as tools of American interests. This situation was facilitated by the
large number of American volunteers swelling PLM ranks, be they
socialists, anarchists or IWW.
Madero finally came to power on 21^(st) May, signing a treaty with Diaz.
Officially, the Revolution was over , and everyone should lay down their
arms. The PLM refused this, and saw that a social revolution was
continuing within Mexico. However, many insurgents now thought that the
Madero regime would lead progressively towards greater social justice.
The American Socialist Party withdrew its support from the PLM, and
transferred it to Madero. Only a section of the IWW and the anarchists
continued to support the PLM.
Despite these setbacks Regeneracion released a new manifesto to replace
that of 1906, calling for struggle against authority, the Church and
capitalism, and for the establishment of a free society. However , some
influential members of the PLM , including Jesus Flores Magon, had
rallied to Madero. And, in June 1912, Ricardo and other important PLM
militants were arrested by the US government and sentenced to 23 months
in jail for breaking the neutrality laws.
Peace only lasted a few weeks after the signing of the treaty and
several movements, including that of Zapata, took up the cry of Land and
Liberty. Madero himself was murdered by the reactionaries and a new
phase of unrest began. When Ricardo Flores Magon came out of jail in
January 1914 he renewed his agitation. Criticising the successive
regimes, he denounced the manipulation of the masses by the different
factions of the bourgeoisie. He castigated Pancho Villa for acting as
their servant, but praised the Zapatistas for maintaining their
principles and behaving as anarchists whilst not using this title.
However repression was falling more and more upon the PLM. Ricardo and
LIbrado Rivera were again arrested by the US government and sentenced
respectively to 20 and 15 years in jail!! In 1922 Ricardo died in
prison, with strong indications that he had been murdered by the US
authorities. Released in 1923 Rivera returned to Mexico where he was a
leading light in the anarchist group Hermanos Rojos),maintaining his
convictions until his death in 1932.
In the south Emiliano Zapata organised armed bands to take back communal
lands seized by the estates, spurred on by the bid by Madero to
challenge the old regime. He represented a new generation willing to
fight and the village elders accepted this situation, standing aside to
let them take over the village councils. The movement around Zapata were
distinguished by their determination to restore communal land . As a
result they increased from a small band to a large movement. They forced
the Madero regime to talk about widespread land reforms. The Zapatistas
established the Plan of Ayala calling for the return of seized lands,
and further that a third of land owned by the estates be distributed to
the landless. This was drafted by Zapata and a local anarchist teacher,
Ottilio E. Montano. After Huerta, representing the old regime, seized
power and murdered Madero, many Magonistas and syndicalists fled south
and made contact with the Zapatista movement. Among these were Octavio
Jahn, a French anarchist communist, and the brothers Ignacio and Antonio
Diaz Soto y Gama.
The Huerta coup meant that opposition was coming from the liberal
bourgeoisie, the workers’ movement and the rural movements. In the north
the movement of cowboys and ranch hands around Villa adopted the Plan of
Ayala, effectively uniting the movements in the countryside. Huerta was
defeated. In the process the peasant groups dismantled many big estates
and killed or expelled many officials of the old regime. The Zapatistas
fought a classic guerrilla campaign, making sudden appearances, and then
disappearing away. The movement built up to include tens of thousands.
When Huerta was smashed the Zapatistas controlled the south. The
Convention of Aguascalientes in September 1914 where the different
forces involved in the smashing of Huerta met up. Peasants and workers
from the revolutionary units forced through the Plan of Ayala. Carranza
and his group refused to accept this and set up their own government. He
the Carranzistas now began to co-opt insurgent leaders. One of these, a
Zapatista leader called Jose Rouaix, who had become governor of Durango,
joined Carranza and together they set up a committee on agrarian reform.
At the same time Carranza sought to buy off the workers’ movement by
promising labour legislation and organising rights (see the separate
article A Grave Error).
The Carranzistas smashed Villa in the north and in the south isolated
the Zapatistas. The intelligentsia and many workers’ leaders made their
peace with Carranza. The Zapatista movement continued in the south ,
with Zapata issuing many denunciations of the new regime, but by now he
had lost most of his intellectual supporters some of the insurgent
leaders who had been won over by promises of non-interference in
Zapatista territory.
On April 9^(th), 1919 Zapata was lured into a trap and gunned down.
The final phase of the revolution took place when some of Carranza’s
generals, who represented a more radical approach of a section of the
bourgeoisie, revolted and in the following hostilities, finally defeated
him. In this conflict the new contender for power, General Obregon,
received the support of many remaining Zapatistas and those who had
earlier joined Carranza.
The triumph of Obregon meant the institutionalisation of the revolution
reflected in the title of the new ruling party, The Institutional
Revolutionary Party. The hopes and aspirations of workers and peasants
had been dashed.
The PLM put the military and insurrectional question before the
political education of its militants. As a result there was a lack of
ideological unity, as seen in the succession of splits and defections.
The 1906 and 1908 insurrections had resulted in the deaths or
imprisonment of many of the most active and politically advanced
militants. The PLM in its progression towards anarchism, began to
accentuate the importance of the working class over that of the
peasantry. However, the working class in Mexico was still in development
and too weak and numerically small to have a decisive influence. For its
part propagation of PLM ideas among the peasants was hindered to a
certain extent by widespread illiteracy. Recruitment to the PLM had been
difficult, and the influx of foreign volunteers had distorted the
situation. The leading lights in the PLM had in the main remained in Los
Angeles when they should have been on the ground in Mexico. They had
believed that the production of Regeneracion, enabled by being in the
States, was of first importance. This removal from the scene clouded
their judgement and their lack of clarity led to a debate on the
international level as to whether or not they were truly anarchist, (
they certainly were) robbing them of a certain amount of international
solidarity. The PLM suffered from lack of finances, whereas Madero, for
example, was able to call on millions of dollars.
Finally, to end positively on the PLM, they had influenced the struggles
of both workers and peasants with their anti-authoritarian ideas,
radicalising them from the Zapatistas in the suth to the formation of
unions heavily under the influences of anarchism. Today still in Oaxaca,
the PLM has inspired the present-day Magonistas.
As to the Zapatista movement, whilst most effective in its military
activity and its land occupations, it failed to actively form an
alliance with urban workers, only gaining the support of a small number
of anarchist workers and intellectuals. Like the PLM , its lack of
political education, led to the defection of people like Rouaix and
others. When the forces of Villa and Zapata arrived in Mexico City they
failed to take the initiative. They failed to form an effective and
lasting alliance among themselves, failed to establish links of
solidarity with urban workers, and failed to confront Carranza and to
attempt to dismantle State power. Nevertheless the influence of the
Zapatistas echoes down to the present day.
As to the workers movement, lack of experience and numerical weakness
does not excuse an inability to link up with the agrarian movements, and
the support given to Carranza against those movements . Revolutionaries,
both in Mexico and elsewhere, need to reflect on all these mistakes, and
be prepared to fight against cooption and compromise in future social
struggles.