Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:50:39.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mexican Communism 1968–1981: Eurocommunism in the Americas?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Barry Carr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In November 1981 the oldest political party in Mexico, the Mexican Communist Party (partido Comunista Mexicano or PCM) dissolved itself and together with four other left parties established the United Socialist Party of Mexico (PSUM). This was the culmination of more than ten years of debate and internal transformation during which the PCM had come to reject many of the traditional assumptions of Latin American communist parties. The most important change within the PCM in the 1970s was a new openness to the broad left seen in the creation of the Left Coalition (Coalición de Izquierda) in 1977 and in the establishment of electoral alliances with Trotskyist parties like the Revolutionary Workers Party (PRT).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , May 1985 , pp. 201 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 La Creación del PSUM (México, 1982, Ediciones del Comité Central del Partido Socialista Unificado de México). Negotiations with the Partido Mexicano de los Trabajadores (PMT) broke down at the end of October 1981.

2 Myers, D. J., ‘Venezuela's MAS’, Problems of Communism, 09–10. 1980, pp. 16–27;Google ScholarWolfgang, Leonhard, Eurocommunism: Challenge for East and West (New York, 1978, Holt, Rinehart & Winston), pp. 30–10.Google Scholar

3 Carlos, Perzabal, Acumuiación capitalista dependiente y subordinada: el caso de México (1940–1978) (México, 1979, Siglo XXI); Miguel Basáñez, La lucba por la hegemonía en México 1968–1980 (México, 1981, Siglo XXI), pp. 140–68;Google ScholarFitzgerald, E. V., ‘The State and Capital Accumulation in Mexico’, Journal of Latin American Studies, vol. 10, no. 2 (1978), pp. 268–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Barry, Carr, ‘The Mexican Economic Debacle and the Labor Movement: A New Era or More of the Same?’ inDon, Wyman (ed), Mexico's Economic Crisis: Challenges and Opportunities (San Diego, 1983, Center for US–Mexican Studies, UCSD), pp. 92–4.Google Scholar

5 Laurence, Whitehead, ‘Mexico from Bust to Boom: A Political Evaluation of the 1976–1979 Stabilization Program’, World Development, vol. 8 (1980).Google Scholar

6 John, Bailey and John, E. Link, Statecraft and Agriculture in Mexico, 1980–1982: Domestic and Foreign Policy Considerations in the Making of Agricultural Policy (La Jolla, 1981, Program in United States–Mexican Studies, UCSD).Google Scholar

7 Arnaldo, Córdova, La política de masas y el futuro de la izquierda en México (Mexico, 1979,Google Scholar Ediciones Era). For one of the sharpest commentaries on Córdova's theses see Alan, Arías, Manuel, Lavániegos and Hipólito, Rodrífguez, ‘Estado y contrarevolución en México’, Cuadernos Politicos, no. 21 (07–09 1979), pp. 25–50.Google Scholar The Movement of Political Action, founded in 1981 by a group of intellectuals and union activists (including Córdova, Rolando Cordera, Antonio Gershenson, Arturo Whaley and Adolfo Sánchez Rebolledo), drew heavily on the experience and ideology of the Democratic Tendency of the Electrical Workers Union (SUTERM). The Democratic Tendency had acted for a while as an inspiration and umbrella group for many of the independent labor unions and currents within the insurgencia obrera in the period from 1972 until its defeat at the hands of the government in 1976. For a discussion of the Democratic Tendency and the ideological and political trajectory of its maximum leader, Rafael Galván, see the special issue of the magazine Solidaridad, 27 Sep. 1980.

8 Yoram, Shapira, ‘Mexico: The Impact of the 1969 Student Protest on Echeverría's Reformism’, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, vol. 19, no. 4 (11 1977).Google Scholar

9 Octavio, Rodríguez Araujo, La reforma política y los partidos en Méixico (México, 1979, Siglo XXI);Google ScholarLa reforma política y la izquierda (México, 1979, Editorial Nuestro Tiempo) especially pp. 43–54.Google Scholar

10 The literature on eurocommunism is vast. I have found the following particularly useful: Carl, Boggs and David, Plotke (eds), The Politics of Eurocommunism (Boston, 1980, South End Press), especially chapter 14;Google ScholarPaolo, Filo della Torre, Edward, Mortimer and Jonathon, Story (eds), Eurocommunism: Myth or Reality (Harmondsworth, 1979, Penguin Books), especially chapters 1,2 3, and 5.Google Scholar

11 Barry, Cart, ‘Temas del comunismo mexicano’, Nexos, 1982, pp. 17–26; Manuel Márquez Fuentes and Octavio Rodríguez Araujo, El partido comunista mexicano (Mexico, Ediciones El Caballito), p. 296;Google ScholarKarl, Schmitt, Communism in Mexico (Austin, 1965, University of Texas Press).Google Scholar

12 On the 1920s, see Ann, L. Craig, The First Agraristas: An Oral History of a Mexican Agrarian Reform Movement (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1983, University of California Press), pp. 87–9, 103, 141–61,Google Scholar and Heather, Fowler Salamini, Agrarian Radicalism in Veracruz, 1920–1938 (Lincoln, 1971, University of Nebraska Press), pp. 29–33, 50–82;Google Scholar for the 1930s, see Judith, Adler Hellman, ‘The Role of Ideology in Peasant Politics: Peasant Mobilization and Demobilization in the Laguna Region’, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 25 (1) (02 1983), pp. 10–11, 16–19;Google ScholarJorge, Morett and Luisa, Paré, ‘“La pequeña rusia”: Las luchas de los trabajadores azucareros de los Mochis, Sinaloa, 1924–1942’, Cuadernos Agrarios, Año (12 1980);Google ScholarJudith, AdlerHellman, , Mexico in Crisis (New York, 2nd ed., 1983, Holmes & Meier), pp. 146–39.Google Scholar

13 On the PCM in the 1920s, see Barry, Carr, El movimiento obrero y 1a política en México, 1910–1928 (México, 1981, Ediciones Era), pp. 98–108.Google Scholar In spite of the oflcial anti- communism of the largest national labor federation, the CROM, there was considerable co-operation between the PCM and the CROM at the local level. For an example see Leticia Gamboa Ojeda, ‘La CROM en Puebla y el movimiento obrero textil en los aāos veinte’, paper presented to the Encuentro de Historia del Movimiento Obrero held in Puebla, 28–31 April 1978. On the formation of national industrial unions in the second half of the 19305 see Arturo, Anguiano, El estado y la política obrera del cardenismo (México, 1978, Ediciones Era);Google ScholarArturo, Anguiano, Guadalupe Pacheco and Rogelio Vizcaíno, Cárdenas y la izquierda mexicana (Méxic, 1975, Juan Pablos), pp. 112–16. Two very useful chronologies of PCM history are Marcela de Neymet, Cronología del Partido Comunista Mexicano: Primera parte, 1959–1939 (México, 1981, Ediciones de Cultura Popular)Google Scholar and Gerardo, Peláez, Partido Comunista Mexicano (Culiacán, 1980, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa), parts 1 and 2.Google Scholar

14 Author's interview with Arnoldo Martínez Verdugo, Mexico City, 6 April 1981.

15 For an inner-party discussion of these issues, see La lucha interna en el partido durante los años de 1939–1948 (México, 1957 Partido Comunista Mexicano). For a glimpse of the situation of the Mexican left in 1947, see Mesa redonda de los marxistas mexicanos (México, 1982, Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, Politicos y Sociales Vicente Lombardo Toledano). On the foundation of the Partido Popular, see Luis, Medina, Civilismo y modernization del autoritarismo. Historia de la revolucián mexicana, volume zo (México, 1979, El Colegio de Mexico).Google Scholar

16 On the foundation of the POCM see Noviembre, no. 17 (15 February 1950). The two most prominent members of the POCM were Valentin Campa and Hernán Laborde (died in 1955). The party had considerable strength among railroad workers and, together with the PCM, its worker base participated actively in the great strikes of 1958–1959.

17 Carr, Temas; Vittorio, Vidali, Diario del XX Congreso (México, 1977, Grijalbo);Google ScholarValentín, Campa, Mi testimonio: memorias de an comunista mexicano (Mexico, 1980, Ediciones de Cultura Popular), pp. 161–2.Google Scholar

18 On Browderism in Mexico, see La Voz de México (25 03 1944), p. 7 (7 04 1944), p. 3. There is also an interesting discussion by Bias Manrique of rank-and-file resistance to the browderista changes. La Voz de México (18 03 1945), p. 6.Google Scholar

19 On Browderism in Cuba, see Karol, K. S., Guerillas in Power (New York, 1970, Hill & Wang), pp. 98–108;Google ScholarJorge, García Montes and Antonio, Alonso Avila, Historia del Partido Comunista de Cuba (Miami, 1970, Ediciones Universal), pp. 311–19, 324–60.Google Scholar On Venezuela see Steven, Elmer, ‘Factionalism in the Venezuelan Communist Movement’, Science and Society, vol. 45, no. 1 (Spring 1981), pp. 2–70, especially pp. 8–60.Google Scholar

20 The first substantial study of the changing nature of Mexican rural capitalism to appear in a PCM organ was published in 1963. Gerardo Unzueta, ‘Relaciones de producción en el campo mexicano 1939–1958’, Nueva Epoca, no. 9 (December 1963).

21 On Lombardo Toledano, see Robert, Millon, Mexican Marxist: Vicente Lombardo Toledano (Chapel Hill, 1966, University of North Carolina Press);Google ScholarCarlos, Sánchez Cárdenas, ‘Lombardo Toledano a los cincuenta años’, La Voz de México (13 08 1944);Google ScholarFrancie, R. Chassen de López, Lombardo Toledano y el movimiento obrero mexicano 1917–1940 (México, 1977, Editorial Extemporáneos).Google Scholar

22 Dionicio, Encina, ‘Cambios mās profundos en el P. C.’, La Voz de México (7 05 1944); Blas Manrique, ‘Nuevo nombre y nueva organización para el P. C.’, La Voz de México (2 March 1944).Google Scholar

23 ‘Informe de nuestro secretario general, D. Encina al Pleno del CC del PCM', La Voz de México (2 March 1947). ‘We will not be a party of opposition, but on the contrary more a party of co-operation in the task of carrying out the goals of the policy of “National Unity”.’ It was only in December 1949 that the PCM leadership formally condemned the Alemán government's policies towards the labor movement and the peasantry, labelling it ‘a regime of national treason and aggression against the working class’ and declaring that the government was carrying out a policy which betrayed the ‘postulates of the bourgeois-democratic revolution within the Mexican Revolution’. Dionicio, Enema, El combate del pueblo mexicano en defensa de la paz y de la independencia nacional (México, 1950, Fondo de Cultura Popular).Google Scholar

24 Author's interview with Arnoldo Martínez Verdugo, Mexico City, 6 April 1981; author's interview with Enrique Semo, Mexico City, 6 May 1981; Arnoldo, Martínez Verdugo, Partida Comunista Mexicano: trayectoría y perspectivas (México, 1977, Ediciones de Cultura Popular), pp. 47–51; Resolución de la conferencia del Partido Comunista en el distrito federal, 11–23 de agosto y 2–19 de septiembre (México, 1957, Ediciones del Comité del D. F. del Partido Comunista Mexicano); Resolución general del XIII congreso ordinario del Partido Comunista Mexicano (México, 1960, mimeo).Google Scholar

25 Author's interview with Rodolfo Echeverría, Mexico City, 7 April 1981; author's interview with Enrique Semo, Mexico City, 6 May 1981. Ilán Semo, Dolores Groman and María Eugenia Romero, ‘El ocaso de los mitos (198–1968)’ in Enrique, Semo (ed.), México: Un pueblo en la historia (México, 1983, Editorial Nueva Imagen), pp. 9–136.Google Scholar

26 Pablo Gómez joined the Communist Youth in 1963 and from 1966 to 1969 was one of the leaders of the student movement at the UNAM. After spending three years as a political prisoner, he resumed his activities in the PCM, becoming a member of the party's Central Committee in 1972 and of the political commission in 1977. He has been a deputy in the Chamber of Deputies since 1979. Asi Es, no. 73 (29 07–4 Aug. 1983), p. 8. Among other prominent party members who participated actively in the events of 1967–9 are Arturo Martínez Nateras, Armando Esparza Aceves; Raul Jardón Guardiola, José Luis Aguayo, Paquita Calvo Zapata, Luciano Concheiro Bórquez, Jorge Méndez Spandola, Luis Ortega Morales, Cuauhtémoc Sandoval Ramírez, Pablo Sandoval Ramírez, Ilán Semo and Ramón Sosamontes.

27 Arnívar, ‘Una decada de crísis y luchas (1969–1978)’ in Semo, México, pp. 211–14.

28 Oposicióo (2 Nov. 1979), p. 3.

29 Coalición de Izquierda: su presencia en la cámara (México, 1981, Ediciones del Comité Central).Google Scholar

30 Arnoldo, Martínez Verdugo, ‘Informe del comité central en el primer punto del orden del día: XVII Congreso del PCM, December 1975’, Socialismo, aāo 1, no. 4(40 trimestre de 1975), pp. 51–8.Google Scholar For a glimpse of the PCM's bitter condemnation of the Mexican electoral system following the bloody repression of the student-popular movement of 1968, see Arnoldo, Martínez Verdugo, ‘Una protesta nacional contra el régimen antidemocrático. Informe al pleno del C. C. de octubre de 1969’, Nueva Epoca, nos. 9–10 (09–10 1969).Google Scholar

31 The PCM began discussions about the unification issue in 1977 together with the PMT, the PPS(m), PSR and the Democratic Tendency of the SUTERM union. For a critical response to these discussions from a PCM figure who would later emerge as one of the leading elements within the renovadores group in 1980–1, see Rodolfo, Echeverría M., ‘No a la llamada fusión de los partidos’, Boletín de Discusión: 18tb Congreso del PCM, no. 3, pp.3–7Google Scholar On the formation of the PMT see Heberto Castillo and Francisco Paoli, J., El Poder Robado (Mexico, 1980, Edamex), pp. 8–15.Google Scholar

32 Valentín Campa, Mi testimonio.

33 The PRT was actually formed shortly after the 1976 elections and it was its immediate predecessor, the Socialist league (LS) that co-operated with the PCM in the elections of June of that year. For the electoral platform of the PCM, LS and the POS see ‘Libertad política para avanzar hacia la democracia y al socialismo’, Oposición, no. 120 (17 01 1976), pp. 2–3, 11.Google Scholar

34 cordova, Politica de Masas.

35 Nuevos problemas y nuevos enfoques sobre el movimiento sindical: lesis aprobados por la Conferencia Nacional Sindical del PCM. Diciembre de 1978 (México, 1979, Ediciones de Cultura Popular), pp. 20–3, 28–34. Arnoldo Martínez Verdugo, ‘La política actual dcl PCM’. Lecture, Mexico City, 10 February 1981.Google Scholar

36 This theme can be followed through the issues of Oposición in 19 and 1980.

37 Antonio, Franco, Gilberto, Rincón Gallardo and Pablo Gómez, , ‘Acerca de la dictadura del proletariado’, Socialsimo, añ;o 2, no. 6, (20 trimestre de 1976).Google Scholar

38 In 1978 a number of PCM theorists and activists (Enrique Semo, Sergio de la Peña, Aéerico Saldivar and others) polemicised with Soviet Latin American specialists over a series of issues relating to the character of Mexican capitalism in the late 1970s. The arguments revolved around the degree of maturity of Mexican capitalism and the degree to which the tendency towards SMC had destroyed national bourgeois and petty bourgeois projects of state capitalism (dating from the Cárdenas era) which were in part concerned with limiting the impact of foreign monopolies and protecting small- and medium-scale segments of the Mexican national bourgeoisie. The Mexican participants emphasised the mature development of capitalism in their country and the impossibility of distinguishing between local and foreign monopolies. This placed the struggle against all monopolies, not simply foreign ones, at the centre of the political agenda of the left. The Soviet specialists doubted the existence of local Mexican monopolies and defended an interpretation which ascribed a more progressive character to the Mexican state and which noted the primacy of anti-imperialist struggle. ‘Acerca de la etapa actual del desarrollo del capitalismo en México’, América Latina, no. 2 (1979) pp. 117–64.Google Scholar See also Enrique, Semo, ‘Acerca del régimen económico actual de México’, Boletín de Discusión: 18 Congreso, no. 4, (23–27 05 1977). Here the political implications of the SMC debate are made very clear. The fusion of local and foreign monopolies with the Mexican state made anti-imperialist struggle automatically a struggle against the Mexican state. The references to SMC dominated party debate and documents from the sixteenth to the eighteenth congress of the PCM (1973–1977). However, by the time the party held its nineteenth congress in March 1981, dissatisfaction with the simplistic and ambiguous character of the SMC designation led to its partial abandonment. The theses presented to the nineteenth congress, for example, argued that the characteristic feature of Mexican capitalism by the late 19705 was the ‘dominance (predominio) of finance capital, to which the increasingly monopolized Mexican economy was increasingly subordinated’. ‘35 tesis para la política del PCM’, Boletín de discusión preparatoria del 19 congreso del PCM, no. 1, pp. 10–13; ‘Tribuna de discusioń para el 19 congreso', Oposición(13 04 1980), p. 3.Google Scholar

39 This thesis was presented for the first time in the sixteenth congress of the party. See N programa para la nueva revalueíon: Informe del Comité Central del Partido Comunista Mexicano al XVI Congreso Ordinario en el segundo punto del orden del día: informante, Gerardo Unzueta.

40 El Partido Comunista frente a la crisis actual: XVIII congreso nacianal (México, 1977, Partido Comunista Mexicano), p. 15.Google Scholar

41 Pablo, Gómez, ‘Luchamos por hacer frente a la crísis: intervención del C. Pablo Gómez en el 18 Congreso del PCM’, Socialismo, aāo 2, no. 6, p. 21.Google Scholar

42 Partido Comunista Mexicano: Declaración de Principios, Programa de Acción y Estatutos (México, 1980, Ediciones del Comité Central del Partido Comunista Mexicano).

43 Carr, , Mexican Economic Debacle, p. 106.Google Scholar

44 Bartra's views are synthesised in Roger, Bartra, El reto de la izquierda (México, 1982, Editorial Grijalbo).Google Scholar

45 Carr, , ‘Impresiones del XIX Congreso del Partido Comunista Mexicano’, Cuadernos Políticos, no. 29 (07–09 1981), pp. 83–92.Google Scholar

46 The announcement that the parties intended to fuse took the membership by complete surprise and caused consternation and a good deal of anger at the fact that the content of the decision and negotiations were known only to the leadership groups (la cúpuía). The actual process of unification was extraordinarily quick, a mere four months from the first offical announcement of the intending event (15 August 1981), until the opening of the unification congress on November. Un solo partidopor la democracia y el socialismo. Documentos preparatorios de la unidad orgánica (México, 10 (?) 1981);Google Scholar for a criticism of the process by a leading PCM figure, see Rodolfo, Echeverría Martínez, ‘Carts de renuncia: El PSUM no es un partido nuevo’, Di, no. 70 ( 03 1982).Google Scholar

47 For examples of furious anti-Trotskyism, see the programme of the MAUS.

48 On the position of the PMT, see the comments of Heberto Castillo, ‘PMT: es posible la unidad’, Crítica Política (15–30 11 1981), pp. 21–2; ‘Decepción en el PMT y en ci país’, Proceso (15 10 1981), pp. 6–7;Google ScholarHerberto, Castillo, ‘En Juego, dos conceptos de democracia partidaria’, Proceso (15 10 1981), pp. 9–11.Google Scholar

49 On Alcozauca, Guerrero, the first communist town council in Mexico, see Sharon Myers, ‘Alcozauca, un presente de cara hacia el futuro’, Di, no. 20 (12 Mar. 1981), pp. 16–19; Hugo, Vargas, ‘Los comunistas guerrerenses en campaña’, Machete, no. 7 (11 1980), pp. 1721.Google Scholar On Juchitán, Oaxaca, where a coalition between the PCM and the COCET took office in March 1981, see Fernando, Contreras, ‘En Juchitán se impuso la voluntad del pueblo’, Di, no. 22 (26 03 1981), pp. 6–8.Google Scholar

50 Gilberto, Rincón Gallardo, ‘El clero y la política’. Socialismo, año 2, no. 7, pp. 26–31.Google Scholar For a fascinating exchange of opinion in 1977 between the PCM and government representatives over the issue of relations with the Vatican and the civic rights of the clergy, see Arnoldo, Martínez Verdugo (ed.), El Partido Comunista Mexicano y la reforma política (México, 1977, Ediciones de Cultura Popular), pp. 80–7.Google Scholar

51 The bishop of Tehuantepec, Arturo Lona, in particular has provided moral support for the COCEI–PSUM struggle in Juchitán and elsewhere in the isthmus.

52 Bandera Socialista (5–ll 09 1983), p. 5 for a trotskyist view of the PSUM second congress; ‘PSUM: un traspies por la izquierda, dos pasos atrás’, Punto Crítico, no. 136 (Sep. 1983), pp. 9–10. The section of the central committee's report to the second congress, opposing the granting of full civic rights to the clergy, was only narrowly approved by the delegates, by a majority of twenty votes. The PSUM's ofikial programme, however, still includes the clerical rights demand. Así Es, no. 79 (9–16 Sep. 1984).

53 For criticisms of the PCM's parliamentary strategy and performance see Por la renovación del Partida Camunista Mexicana: Pralegómenas de un debate (Mexico, 1981), pp. 9–17 (the original declaration of the renovadares in the newspaper Excélsior), pp. 163–8 (‘La izquierda en Ia cámara’ by Jorge Castañeda);Google ScholarEvaristo, Pérez Arreola, ‘El trabajo parliamentario es bueno, pero…’, Machete, no. 10 (02 1981), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

54 On SUTIN, see the interview with Arturo, Whaley, secretary-general of the union in Solidaridad (12 1980), p. 6.Google Scholar On the biggest of the opposition currents within the SNTE, the Coordinadora Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación (CNTE), see Balance de la insurgencia magisterial. Ponencias al III Foro de Ia CNTE, abril de 1981, Movimiento Revolucionario del Magisterio (Mexico, 1981, Ediciones Movimiento);Google ScholarIván, Garcia Soils, ‘La nueva insurgencia magisterial’, Machete, No. 3 (07 1980), pp. 42–3;Google ScholarHugo, Aboites, ‘El salario del educadoren México (1925–1982)’, Coyoacén, año VIII, no. 16 (Enero-Marzo 1984).Google Scholar

55 Author's interview with Roger Bartra, Mexico City, 29 April 1981.

56 For articles of this kind see Carlos, Monsivais, ‘Feminismo y homosexualidad’, no. 1, pp. 15–24;Google Scholar Enrique Semo, ‘El cocinero Stalin y el pavo asado del dogmatismo’, no. 1, pp. 31–3; Marcela, Lagarde, ‘Hacia una memoria feminista’, no. (09 1980), pp. 44–51;Google ScholarJorge Alcocer, V., ‘Es Mexico imperialista?’, no. 6 (10 1980), pp. 15–17Google ScholarMario, Zapata, ‘La lección de Polonia’, no. 9, pp. 29–31;Google ScholarMario, Zapata, ‘Dictadura, ni la del proletariado’, no. 13 (05 1981), pp. 39–41.Google Scholar

57 See, for example, the articles and correspondence on the situation of the PCM in Monterrey and in the University of Nuevo Leon in issues 4, 8 and 10.

58 Por la renovación. The origins of the movement of the renovadores go back to a debate at the December 1979 plenum of the PCM central committee. See Por la renovación, pp. 103–6.

59 Ibid.; Carr, Impresiones.

60 This charge is denied by Roger Bartra. Author's interview with Bartra, Mexico City, 29 April 1981.

61 Nexos (Sep. 1981).

62 Author's interview with Roger, Bartra, Mexico City, 29 04 1981.Google Scholar

63 Author's interview with Amalia, García, Mexico City, 12 05 1981.Google Scholar

64 35 tésis para la política del PCM. Primer boletín de discusión preparatoria del 19 congreso del PCM (Mexico, 1980, Ediciones del Comité Central), pp. 48–50, 77.Google Scholar

65 The resolution on women is published in Asi Es, no, 70 (8–14 07 1983), p. 8. The resolution was modified to remove references to the PSUM as a feminist party. Alba Martínez Olive, ‘Feminismo en el PSUM? doble opresión, doble militancia’, Asi Es, no. 78 (2–8 September 1983). Three of the four women elected to the PSUM central committee, Paquita Calvo Zapata, Elvira Concheiro Bórquez and Amalia García, were former members of the PCM.Google Scholar

66 For a rank-and-file response to the congress debates on youth questions, see the letter by Lohengrin, Martínez Flores in Oposición, no. 86 (28 10–3 11 1983).Google Scholar

67 Arturo, Martínez Nateras, Punto seguido: crísis en el PCM? (México, 1980, edición del autor), pp. 87–169.Google Scholar