Mexican Revolution Historiography (Paper 2 & 3)

Adolfo Gilly

The Interrupted Mexican Revolution
Perspective 1: Capitalism was fought against the peasants because it disrupted cultural traditions and incorporated more governmental control.
"The dynamic of their [the peasants'] struggle involved … an attack of the bases of the capitalist organization of state and society."
Perspective 2:
apatistas became an organized group of people that went on to fight in major cities, protect land rights, and advocate for legal and social representation
"The Zapatista revolution challenged the very foundations on which capitalism molded and sustained itself."

Richard Roman

Criticisms AGAINST Gilly:
- Class reductionism without focusing on internal political processes
- Remains rigidly in the projection of the proletariat revolution
- Heavy idealization of the relationship between mass base and leadership
- A too monolithic notion of capitalist domination
Quote: "The Revolution is no longer seen as a revolution with rival currents but as rival revolutions"

Harry H. Stein

Lincoln Steffens serves as a good example for many well-intentioned but poorly informed Americans who study revolutions in that he came to Mexico to be an intellectual force but ultimately got lost in the chaos of the revolutions. Ended up overestimating his influence on the course of events.

Marxist Historians

The revolution was a socialist revolution, even if the people did not consider it to be socialist. The people of Mexico were trying to overcome a capitalist government, so Stein believes they were socialist.

Revisionist Historians

Americans stated that foreign influence was important because they believed the Mexican government was less developed than the American government.

Participant Historians

Obregon and Carranza were great (political) leaders of Mexico because they ended the bloodshed and violence.

Volk

The Mexican Revolution can be broken down into 5 different revolutions: A bourgeois revolution, a peasant revolution, a worker's revolution, a cultural revolution, and a foreign affairs revolution.

Alan Knight

Perspective 1:
The Mexican Revolution was a myth, as shown by the lack of ideological change/lack of change in power structure. Allowed the PRI to maintain power.
Perspective 2:
Difference between revolution (overturning system) and reaction (opposing forces)
Perspective 3:
Diaz's modernizing efforts were mainly geared towards creating an export-oriented economy based on agriculture and mining, which required peasants off their land.

James Cockroft

The Revolution did not change the capitalism in Mexico that was originally fought against in the Porfiriato (not a bourgeois revolution)

Theda Skocpol

Mexican Revolution did not truly invoke and socio-economic changes that affected class structure and general society

John Hart

Diaz's regime was "based on fear a coercion" and that his authoritarianism undermined the principles of democracy and social justice.

Enrique Krauze

Perspective 1:
The Revolution was driven by a moral outrage at the abuses of power and privilege that characterized Mexican society at the time.

Diaz's modernizing policies attracted foreign investment and boosted the country's economy, but also created a system of patronage and corruption that benefitted his supporters and contributed to social inequality.

John Womack Jr.

Perspective 1:
The revolution was sparked by "a crisis of modernization," in which the country's attempts to modernize and industrialize were thwarted by a lack of investment and infrastructure, as well as entrenched social and economic inequalities.
Perspective 2:
The Mexican Revolution was driven by the desire for political change and rejection of the old political order, which was seen as corrupt, unjust, and unresponsive to the needs of the Mexican people.
Perspective 3:
Diaz's rule was based on "an ideology of order and progress" that justified his authoritarianism as necessary for modernizing Mexico.

John Coatsworth

The Mexican Revolution was a result of the country's "dual economy," in which a small, wealthy elite controlled much of the country's productive resources, while the majority of Mexican lived in poverty.

Frank Tannenbaum

The Revolution was driven by the country's uneven development, which left many Mexicans without access to basic necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare.

Anna Macias

Despite being often overlooked in traditional historical narratives, women were active participants in various aspects of the revolution, including as combatants, supporters, propagandists, and organizers.

Elena Poniatowska

Despite women's involvement in the revolution, their position in society remained largely unchanged.

Knight

U.S. intervention in Mexico was a form of imperialism, motivated by economic gain.

Womack Jr.

Agreed U.S influence was imperialist

The Revolution was led by pragmatic concerns

Katz

U.S. intervention was immoral

Cardenas was an inefficient and corrupt

Coatsworth

Intervention was immoral because it invoked force on Mexican citizens

Cardenas was a step forward for Mexico

McLynn

Economic interest pushed U.S. influence

DeLay

U.S. involvement was pushed by economic interest and investment opportunities

Foster

Influence was pursued because it allowed for political stability in the Americas

Krauze

Revolution was a missed opportunity to create a stable political system

Post-revolution tension was due to Revolution Ideal vs Pragmatism

Coatsworth

Revolution was a critical turning point for Mexico

Womack Jr.

Post-War was a state of social and cultural transformation

Gilly

Cardenas was genuinely attempting to rebuild the society.

Tannenbaum

Cardenas was a turning point for breaking oligarchy in Mexico.