Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T23:52:57.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Working Class and the Mexican Revolution, c. 1900–1920

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Alan Knight
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Like any major historical phenomenon, the Mexican Revolution can be viewed from a variety of angles. From one, arguably the most important, it was a rural phenomenon, rightly categorised by Eric Wolf as a ‘peasant war’, hence comparable to the Russian or Chinese Revolutions. Form another it can be seen as a generalised social and political (some might like to call it ‘hegemonic’ crisis, marking the end of the old oligarchic Porfirian order and characterised by mass political mobilisation; as such it bears comparison with the crises experienced in Italy and Germany after the First World War; in Spain in the early 1930s; in Brazil in the 1960s or Chile in the 1970s. But what it emphatically was not was a workers' revolution. No Soviets or workers' party sought — let alone attained — political hegemony. No Soviets or workers' councils were established, as in Petrograd or Berlin. There were no attempts at works' control of industry, as in Turin, Barcelina — or the gran mineria of Bolivia.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , May 1984 , pp. 51 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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 Eric, Wolf, Peasant Wars of the Twentienth Century (London, 1969).Google Scholar In the course of this paper, relatively few comparisons are drawn with other Latin American labour movements/working classes, though some are drawn (perhaps fancifully) with Europe. In part, this reflects the writer's ignorance; in part his belief that studies of the European working class (by Thompson, Barrington Moore, the Tillys and others) often ask more interesting questions and thus suggest more fruitful lines of comparison. The whole question of the introduction of the time and work discipline of capitalism, now a staple theme in European labour history, has only just begun to agitate Latin American research (e.g. Arnold, Bauer, ‘Rural Workers in Spanish America: Problems of Peonage and Oppression’, Hispanic American Historical Review, vol. 59 (1979), pp. 34–63); as yet, it does not seem to have had much impact on studies of the urban workers which, with some notable exceptions, still tend to concentrate on the rather formalistic political and ideological gyrations of labour confederations and their leaderships: acronyms rule.Google Scholar

2 As regards ‘urbanism’ (which I shall not attempt to define by size of community, etc.), this is a self-imposed, but conventional distinction; it eliminates the agricultural proletariat (who were also immersed in the market) from consideration. The argument does try to take in, albeit briefly, (a) the large intermediate rural/urban sector and (b) the vestiges of ‘traditional’ or ‘paternalist’ practice which still characterised industry, to the detriment of a pure free market economy. Both urbanism and immersion in the market, in other words, are ideal types, analytically valid, though often compromised in practice.

3 Wirth, A., ‘Urbanism as a way of life’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 44, (1938), pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Barry, Carr, ‘The Casa del Obrero Mundial, Constitutionalism and the Pact of February 1915’, in Elsa, Cecilia Frost et al. (eds.), El Trabajo y los Trabajadores en la Historia de México ( Mexico and Arizona, 1979), p.621.Google Scholar

5 Rodney, D. Anderson, Outcasts in Their Own Land; Mexican Industrial Workers, 1906–1911 (De Kalb, 1978), p. 198;Google ScholarJosé, Gutiérrez to Madero, 12 06 1911, Archivo Francisco Madero (henceforth AFM), INAH, r. 20.Google Scholar

6 Gabriel, Gavira, General de Brigada Gabriel Gavira, su actuactión político-militar revolucionaria (Mexico, 1933), p. 7;Google ScholarAnderson, , Outcasts, pp. 82–2 108–9;Google ScholarCarr, , ‘Casa’, p. 606.Google Scholar

7 Jean, Meyer, The Cristero Rebellion: The Mexican People Between Church and State 1926–1929, (Cambridge, 1976), 910.Google Scholar

8 Mario, Gill, ‘Los Escudero de Acapulco’, Historia Mexicana, vol. 111 (1953), pp. 291–308;Google ScholarLeif, Adleson, ‘Coyuntura y consciencia: Factores convergentes en la fundación de los sindicatos petroleros de Tampico durante la década de 1920’,Google Scholar in Frost, et al. (eds.), pp. 632–6,. It was the American workers who pioneered strike action at Cananea.Google Scholar

9 Estrada, to Calderón, E. Baca in Diario de los Debates del Congreso Constituyente 1916–17 (2 vols. Mexico, 1960), 11, 988.Google Scholar

10 Report of the ex-Secretary of the Club Político Libres Mexicanos, Zaragoza, Coahuila, n.d. (1914) in Archivo de Gobernación (henceforth AG), legajo 873.

11 Ugarte, G. to Sánchez Azcona, J., 24 04 1912,Google Scholar in Isidro, Fabela, Documentos Históricos de la Revolución Mexicana, Revolución y Régimen Maderista (vols. Mexico, 1964), 111 331–2;Google ScholarGuzmán, M. to Madero, , 23 12 1911, AG, ‘Convención Revolucionaria’.Google Scholar

12 Shanklin, , Mexico City, 1 07 1912, State Department Archive (henceforth SD), 812.00/4468 The whole question of the pelados – the urban lumpenproletariat – merits separate treatment (and further research); I am differentiating them from the urban working class, as defined here, and thus excluding them rather arbitrarily from the analysis.Google Scholar

13 Barrington, Moore Jr, Injustice: The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt (London, 1978).Google Scholar

14 Alan, Knight, ‘Peasant and Caudillo in the Mexican Revolution’, in Brading, D. (ed.), Caudillo and Peasant in the Mexican Revolution (Cambridge, 1980).Google Scholar

15 Reginald, E. Zelnik, ‘Passivity and Protest in Germany and Russia: Barrington Moore's Conception of Working-Class Responses to Injustice’, Journal of Social History, Vol. 15 (1981–1982), p. 489.Google Scholar

16 Moore, , Injustice, pp. 233–4, 241, 251, 257, 269–74;Google ScholarGaviv, A. Smith and Pedro, Cano H., ‘Some Factors Contributing to Peasant Land Occupations in Peru: the Example of Huasicancha, 1963–8’, in Long, N. and Roberts, B. (eds.), Peasant Cooperation and Capitalist Expansion in Central Peru (Austin, 1978), p. 188.Google Scholar

17 Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 254–65; and the same author's synthesis, ‘Mexican Workers and the Politics of Revolution, 1906.Google Scholar

18 Jesús, Reyes Heroles, El Liberalismo Mexicano (3 vols. Mexcio, 1957–1961), 111, 539–674, uses the term ‘social liberalism’ in a different sense.Google Scholar

19 Alan, Knight, The Mexican Revolution (Cambridge, forthcoming), ch. 9, pt. ix.Google Scholar

20 Frederick, J. Shaw, ‘The Artisan in Mexico City’, in Frost et al. (eds.), p. 413.Google Scholar

21 Moisés, Gonzalez Navarro, Historia Moderna de México El Porfiriato, La Vida Social (Mexico, 1970), pp. 72ff.;Google ScholarDiario de los Debates,11, 620;Google ScholarEl Demócrata, 29 11 1915, 03 5 1916.Google Scholar

22 Carr, , ‘Casa’, p. 607; Trabajo y Producción (organ of the Unión Minera Mexicana) 13, 21 01, 15 04 1917.Google Scholar

23 Carr, , ‘Casa’, p. 621;Google ScholarWomak, J., Zapata and the Mexican Revolution (New York, 1970), pp. 398, 401.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., p. 245; Director, 6th dirección, to Secretary of Labour, 8 Aug. 1914, Trabajo 34/1/14/22; London: Public Records Office, Hohler, Mexico City, 9 March 1915, FO 371 (Mexico)/2404, 182348.

25 Carothers, , Torreón, , 24 02, 15, 19 03 1912, S.D. 812.00/3085, 3362, 3421.Google Scholar

26 Luis, González y González, Historia Moderna de México: La República Restaurada. La Vida Social (Mexico, 1956), pp. 440–5;Google ScholarAnderson, , Outcasts, pp. 173 ff.;Google Scholar and, for the the agrarian question, Ramón Eduardo Ruíz, The Great Rebellion, Mexico 1905–24 (New York, 1980), pp. 96–8.Google Scholar

27 Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 176, 210–11Google ScholarRamon, Eduardo Ruíz, Labor and the Ambivalent Revolutionaries, Mexico 1911–23 (Baltimore, 1976), p. 6;Google ScholarGavira, , op cit., p. 14Google ScholarManuel, González Calzada, Historia de la Revolución Mexicana en Tabasco (Mexico, 1972), p. 31.Google Scholar

28 González, Navarro, op.cit., pp. 808–10;Google Scholar on elite responses to the ‘social question’ in Chile (where it did not, of course, presage a popular revolution), see James, O. Morris, Elites, Intellectuals, and Consenus: A Study of the Social.Question and the Industrial Relations ystem in Chile (Ithaca, 1966), especially pp. 78–171.Google Scholar

29 As already suggested, this represents an ideal type: within many factories, labour was highly regulated, and, even outside, there were still vestiges of peonage, e.g. in recruitment for the mines: El Correo de Chihuahua, 9, 2301 1920. Of course, as Bauer and others have pointed out, the cash advance (enganche)Google Scholar may serve as a device to recruit free wage labour (particularly in the face of peasant resistance), as well as to create a semi-servile peonage: see Bauer, , ‘Rural Workers’; Friedrich, Katz, La Servidumbre Agraria en Mexico en la Epoca Porifiriana (Mexico, 1980), pp. 40–2, 79–81, 97–8;Google ScholarThomas, Louis Benjamin, ‘Passages to Leviathan: Chiapas and the Mexican State’(Ph.D. Diss., Michigan State, 1981), p. 103.Google Scholar

30 Thompson, E. P., ‘Time, work-discipline and industrial capitalism‘, Past and Present, vol. 38 (1967), pp. 56–97;CrossRefGoogle Scholar the seminal statement is still to be found in Max, Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (London, 1974), pp. 47–78.Google Scholar

31 Shaw, , op.cit., pp. 416–17.Google Scholar On industrial growth during the 1890s, see Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 21–9.Google Scholar

32 González, Navarro, op.cit., pp. 77–8, 416–19, 535–36;Google ScholarWilliam, H. Beezley, Insurgent Governor: Abraham González and the Mexican Revolution in Chihuahua (Lincoln, 1973), pp. 103–13;Google ScholarEl Correo de Chihuahua, 19 02, 26 06 1910Google ScholarLa Nueva Era (Parral), 8 03 18 10, 16 12 1906;Google ScholarKatz, , La Servidumbre Agraria, pp. 97–100.Google Scholar

33 Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 76, 159, 308.Google Scholar

34 Ibid., pp. 78, 95.

35 Ibid., pp. 94, 130–1, 153, 159; Katz, , La Servidumbre Agraria, pp. 114–15.Google Scholar

36 Company auditor's report, April 1906, INAH, serie Sonora, r. 9.

37 Knight, A. S., ‘Nationalism, Xenophobia and Revolution: the Place of Foreigners and Foreign Interests in Mexico, 1910–17’ (Oxford D.Phil. Diss., 1974), pp. 84–92, 23–6.Google Scholar

38 John, H. Coatsworth, ‘Anotaciones sobre la produccion de alimentos durante el Porfiriato’, Historia Mexicana, vol. 26 (1976), pp. 167–87.Google Scholar

39 The real, minimum daily wage is reckoned to have fallen by some third (for agriculture) between 1899 and 1910, by a quarter for industry, while for mining it rose by a quarter; these figures are open to question but the broad picture – a general fall in real wages, alleviated in certain export sectors (e.g. mining) – seems valid. El, Colegio de Mexico, Estadísticas Económicas del Porfiriato, pp. 14851;Google ScholarAnderson, , Outcasts, pp. 58, 62;Google ScholarFernando, Gonzáles Roa, El Aspecto Agrario de la Revolución Mexicana (Mexico, 1919), p. 165.Google Scholar

40 Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 224, 333; Knight, Mexican Revolution, ch., pt. vi.Google Scholar

41 Moore, Injustice; Thomas, E. P., ‘The Moral Economy of the English Crowd of the Eighteenth Century’ Past and Present, vol. 1. (1971), pp. 76–136;Google ScholarJames, C. Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia (New Haven, 1976).Google Scholar

42 Cf., Ruiz, Labor, pp. 7–11.Google Scholar

43 Mexican Year Book (Los Angeles, 1922), pp. 341–2.Google Scholar

44 Anderson, , Outcasts, p. 349.Google Scholar

45 Womack, , Zapata, p. 81;Google ScholarPatrick, O'Hea, Reminiscences of the Mexican Revolution (Mexico, 1966), p. 16;Google ScholarAlan, Knight, ‘Intellectuals in the Mexican Revolution’, paper given to the VIth Congress of Mexican and U.S. Historians, Chicago, 09 1981.Google Scholar

46 Aggregate figures are hard to obtain; in textiles, while the attrition was probably most marked, the ratio of artisans to factory workers moved from 41,000:19,000 (1895) to 12,000: 32,000 (1910); for these and other figures see Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 38–9, 46–7.Google Scholar

47 Vitold, de Szyszlo, Dix Mules KilomÈtres à travers le Méxique (Paris, 1913), p. 229;Google ScholarToribio, Esquivel Obregón in Jesú, Silva Herzog, La Cuestión de la Tierra ( 4 vols. Mexico, 1961), II, 132; and Wistano Luis Orozco in the same series, 1, 213.Google Scholar

48 Thompson, , Making of the English Working Class, p. 346.Google Scholar

49 Soto, B. to Robles Domínguez, A., 22 05 1911;Google ScholarZamora, R. to same, 27 05 1911; Archivo A.Google Scholar Robles Domínguez (henceforth AARD), Biblioteca Nacional de México, 11/2, 11/22; Rowe, Guanajuato, 23 May 1911, SD812. 00/2046; San, Miguel petition to Gobernación, , 27 05 1911, AG 898. Neither these reports, nor such additional evidence as I have found, shed much light on the precise composition of the rioters (in particular, whether they were ‘factory workers’ in the strict sense, or out-workers, or some combination of both); the ‘faces in the crowd’ remain blurred.Google Scholar

50 Soto, B. to Robles, Domínguez, 2 06 1911;Google ScholarLizardi, F. to Carlos, Robles Domínguez, 06 1911; AARD 11/69, 11/53;Google ScholarEl Diario dell Hogar, 23 03 1911.Google Scholar

51 Rowe, , Guanajuato, , 23 05 1911, SD 821.00/2046.Google Scholar

52 Hohler, , Mexico City, 17 05 1911, FO 371/1147, 20780;Google ScholarAguirre, to Gobernación, , 22 07 1911, AG 898; G. Sánchez to Gobernación, 22 July 1911, AG 898; Manager, Cía Minera de los Reyes, to directors, 31 05 1911, AARD 6/136; jefe político, Zitácuaro, to Governor Silva, 3 07 1911, AG 14, ‘Relaciones con los Estados (Mich.)’.Google Scholar

53 Brading, D., Miners and Merchants in Bourbon Mexico 1763–1810 (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 233–5, 276; cf. Trabajo y Producción (organ of the UMM), 12 01 1917, where the aim of socialism is said to be that of freeing the worker ‘without resort to violence’; during the one major strike at Cananea during the Madero years, the miners' ‘leaders advised against violence’: Simpich, Cananea, 21 12 1912, SD 812.00/5750.Google Scholar

54 Cf., Hobsbawm, E. J., Primitive Rebels: Studies in Arcbaic Forms of Social Movement in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (Manchester, 1974), pp. 108–25;Google ScholarGeorge, Rudé, The Crowd in History 1730–1848 (New York, 1964).Google Scholar

55 Hobsbawm, , op.cit., pp. 108, 124. Something akin to Luddism, however, appears to have characterised the worker–peasant movement in Tlaxcala/Puebla: Jenkins, Puebla, 18 11 SD 812.00/14073.Google Scholar

56 Carr, , ‘Casa’, p. 606;Google ScholarRon, Tyler, Posada's Mexico (Washington, 1979), p. 72;Google ScholarMorgan, A. L., ‘Economy and Society in the D.F., 1880–1920’ (Council for National Academic Awards, Ph.D. thesis, in preparation), ch. vi; González y González, op cit., pp 449–50.Google Scholar

57 Atenedoro, Gámez, Monografía Histórica sobre la Génesis de la Revolución en el Estado de Puebla (Mexico, 1960), pp. 22–3;Google ScholarSilvestre, Dorador, Mi Prisión, La Defensa Social y la Verdad del Caso (Mexico, 1916), p. 2;Google ScholarGavira, , op.cit., p. 6;Google ScholarNunn, L. J., Veracruz, 29 04 1911, FO 371/1147, 18523.Google Scholar

58 Francisco, I. Madero, La Sucesión Presidencial en 1910 (San Pedro, 1908), p. 241.Google Scholar

59 Santos Coy, A. to Madero, 26 09 1911, AFM r. 21; to Robles Domínguez, 9 07 1911, AARD 39/11; records of the Workers Mutualist Society, Aquiles Serdán, Cananea, 27 09 1919, and the Cooperative Mutualist Society, Río Blanco, 16 02 1920, Archivo del Depto. de Trabajo (henceforth Trabajo) 34/2/8, expd. 2.Google Scholar

60 González, y González, op.cit., pp. 426–7, 437–45.Google Scholar

61 Carr, , ‘Casa’, pp. 613–14;Google ScholarJean, Meyer, ‘Les Ouvriers dans la Révolution Mexicaine. Les Bataillons Rouges‘, Annales E.S.C., vol. 25 (1970). Again, the question is raised of how legitimate it is to include both the artesanos cultos – the skilled, often self-employed craftsmen – and (for example) the print workers or tram drivers under the generic heading ‘artisans’.Google Scholar

62 Raymond, Th. J. Buve, ‘Peasant Movements, Caudillos and Land Reform during the revolution (1910–17) in Tlaxcala, Mexico’, Boletin de Estudios Lalino-Americanos y del Caribe, No. 18 (1975);Google ScholarKnight, , ‘Peasant and Caudillo’, pp. 26–36.Google Scholar

63 Reginald, E. Zelnik, ‘The Peasant and the Factory’ in Wayne, S. Vuchinich (ed.), The Peasant in Nineteenth Century Russia (Stanford, 1968), pp. 158–90.Google Scholar

64 Buve, , loc.cit., pp. 131–2;Google ScholarAnderson, , Outcasts, p. 316.Google Scholar

65 Ibid., p. 275 Altariste, B. to Madero, , 26 11 1951, Fabela, 11, 346–8;Google Scholar Banco Oriental manager, Tlaxcala, to manager, Puebla, , 26 09 1911, AG, ‘Convención Revolucionaria’.Google Scholar

66 Anderson, , Outcasts, p. 317;Google ScholarBarry, Carr, El Movimiento Obrero, y la Poiltica en México 1910–29 (2 vols Mexico, 1976), 11, 20–2, 50–1 touch on the largely unexplored question of rural labour recruitment,Google ScholarPacheco, A. to Lopez Jiménez, M., 30 01 1915, Trabajo 34/1/14/28 on support for Zapata.Google Scholar

67 Even in the rebel heartland of 1910–11 – the Sierra Madre of Chihuahua – the workers in the timber towns (Madera, Pearson) were reckoned to be genie tranquila, ‘fully dedicated to their work in a very peaceful manner’: Vega Bonilla, J. to Terrazas, A., 30 11 1910, Silvestre Terrazas Archive, Bancroft Library, Berkeley, Box 28. Many other examples could be cited from later in the revolution too.Google Scholar

68 Landa y Escandón's Grand Mutualist Society appears to have had more success than Zubatov's police unions: Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 232–3; See also pp. 225, 249–50; and Gavira, , op.cit., pp. 9, 13, 17, on the sympathy which some Porifirian officials displayed towards the workers, at least in the Orizaba region.Google Scholar

69 Katz, , Servidumbre Agraria, op. 43–7; 54–5; Knight, ‘Peasant and Caudillo‘, pp. 24–5, 29–31.Google Scholar

70 Guerra, F.-X., ‘La Revolution Méxicaine: d'abord une révolution miniere?’, Annales, E.S.C. vol. 36 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71 Alan, Knight, ‘La Révolution Méxicaine: révolution miniÈre ou révolution serrano?’, Annales, E.S.C. vol. 38 (1983).Google Scholar

72 Moore, , Injustice, p. 135.Google Scholar

73 Thompson, E. P., ‘The Peculiarities of the English’, in The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (London, 1978), p. 71.Google Scholar

74 Rafael Sierra y Domíguez to Trabajo, , 1303 1913, Trabajo 31/3/3/22;Google ScholarFrancisco, Urquizo, Páginas de la Revolución (Mexico, 1965), pp. 11, 33.Google Scholar

75 Gill, , ‘Los Escudero’;Google ScholarMiller, , Tampico,13 11 1911, 17 02 1912, 15 06 1912;Google ScholarBevan, , Tampico, 12 1912; SD 812.00/2515, 2901, 4262; 5714.Google Scholar

76 The railway workers sought not only to organise and improve conditions, but also to supplant the American employees who held the better jobs; in which respect their long struggle – initiated under Díaz – achieved real results: Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 117–19, 235–41 Ruiz, , Labor, p. 28. Groups such as the Jaliscan Railwaymens Club ‘Union and Progress’, affiliated to Madero's P.C.P.Google Scholar

77 Or, there is a prevailing assumption that where worker–peasants rebel, the initiative springs from the ‘worker(s)’ transforming the peasant(s); as in the crude dualism of vintage development theory, the city (or factory) is seen as the source of peasant politicisation – without which the peasants remain in rural idiocy, inert and ideologically dumb. In fact, the transfer of resources may go the other way.

78 Anderson, , Outcasts, p. 117.Google Scholar

79 Ibid., p. 131; Manuel, J. Aguirre, Cananea (Mexico, 1958), pp. 71–150;Google ScholarHector, Aguilar Camín, La Revolución Sonorense, 1910–14 (Mexico, INAH, 1975), pp. 127–30.Google Scholar

80 Anderson, , Outcasts, pp. 114–16, 121–3, 131, 268–70.Google Scholar

81 Ibid., p. 145.

82 Ibid., 107, 109, 133, 143–54; Gavira, pp. 7–9.

83 Aguilar, , pp. 122–30 and Simpich, Cananea, 16 12 1912,Google Scholar SD 812.00/5746 Ofl wages; see also Aguirre, , pp. 156, 173,Google Scholar and David, M. Pletcher, Rails, Mines and Progress: Seven American Pioneers in Mexico 1867–1911 (Ithaca, 1958), pp. 229, 255. Not only were wages raised; the American share of the force – at Cananea, as on the railways, a source of discontent – was cut from 34% (1905) to 13% (1912).Google Scholar

84 Lefaivre, Mexico City, 24 Nov. 1910, Archives des Affaires EtrangÈres, Paris, Méxique, Pol. Int., N.S. II: Gavira, , op, cit., pp. 28–9;Google ScholarDíaz, R. to López Jiménez, M., 22 03 1915, Trabao 32/1/1/14; Canada, Veracruz, 13 04 1915, SD 812.00/14982.Google Scholar

85 Anderson, , Outcasts, p. 308;Google ScholarCarr, . Movimiento Obrero, 1, 49–50.Google Scholar

86 Ruiz, , Labor; comments of Jean Meyer in Frost, et al. (eds.), p. 662.Google Scholar

87 John, Rutherford, Mexican Society daring the Revolution. a Literary Approach (Oxford, 1971), pp. 189, 236–7, is a good but not untypical example.Google Scholar

88 Carr, , Movimiento Obrero, 1, 58–63; examples of strikes taken chiefly from American consular reports for 1911–12, which contain abundant information.Google Scholar

89 Hamm, , Durango, , 30 06 1911, SD812.00/2265.Google Scholar

90 Voetter, , Saltillo, , 12 08 1911, SD 812.00/2346.Google Scholar

91 Madero, to GovernorRosales, Hidalgo Rosales, Hidalgo, 18 01 1912.Google ScholarFabela, op.cit., 111, 45; El Socialista, 16 01 1913.Google Scholar For examples of repression, Carr, , Movimiento Obrero, 1, 67; Kirk, , Manzanillo, , 19 03 1912, SD 812.00/3361.Google Scholar

92 Sierra y Domínguez, R. to Trabajo, 13 03 1913, Trabajo, 31/3/7/22; Ruiz, , Labor, pp. 32–6.Google Scholar

93 Kirk, , Manzanillo, , 7 08, Ellsworth, Cd. Porfirio Díaz, 11 08 1911, SD 812.00/2346;Google ScholarHamm, , Durango, , 27 11 1911, SD 812.00/2856.Google Scholar

94 Schmutz, , Aguascalientes, 08 1911, SD 812.00/2346.Google Scholar

95 Arenas, E. to Madero, G., 24 08 1911; AFM r. 20;Google ScholarKnight, , Mexican Revolution, ch. 6, Pt. iii.Google Scholar

96 The Tampico workers, whose politicisation has already been noted (n. 75), became vital elements in the political battle between Portes Gil and Lopez de Lara in Tamaulipas: Adleson, pp. 633ff.; Hanna, , Monterrey, 1, 11 08 1911, Schmutz, Aguascalientes, 1 07 1912, SD 812. 00/2256, 2346, 4381; note also the Aguascalientes electoral returns (San Pablo), 1 10 1911, in AFM r. 20.Google Scholar

97 C/o USS Des Moines, Tampico, 25 Sep., 8 Oct. 1912, SD 812.00/5091, 5195.

98 Urquizo, , Páginas, p. 33; Ellsworth, Cd. Porfirio Díaz, 18 03 1912, SD 812.00/3341;Google ScholarAngel, Flores et al. to Gobernación, 17 02 1912, AG 14, ‘Relaciones con los Estados’; railwaymen and Cananea miners also offered to aid the Madero regime militarily: Jose Gutiérrez to Madero, AFM r. 20; Marcelino Caraveo to Madero, 27 11 1911, AG Convención Revolucionaria.Google Scholar

99 Roland, Sarti, Fascism and the Industrial Leadership in Italy 1919–40 (Berkeley, 1971), p 40.Google Scholar

100 Ruiz, , Labor, 39–40.Google Scholar

101 Davis, , Guadalajara, , 11 1914, SD 812.50/3; M. Triana to Gobernación, 14 06 1916, AG 86/7; El Demócrata, 02 03 1916.Google Scholar

102 Carr, , ‘Casa’, pp. 618–19;Google ScholarBuckley, W. F. (oil company attorney) in US Senate, Investigation of Mexican Affairs (2 vols. Washington, 1919–1920), p. 827.Google Scholar

103 Ernest, Gruening, Mexico and its Heritage (New York), p. 342.Google Scholar

104 Joseph, G. M., Revolution from Without: Yucatan, Mexico and the Unitied States, 1880–1924 (Cambridge, 1982), p. 141;Google ScholarCampbell, R., Mexico City, 9 01 1918, FO 361/3242, 38000.Google Scholar

105 Garzall, F. to Carranza, , 8 05 1916, Carranza Archive, Condumez; c/o USS Marietta, Veracruz and Tampico, 23, 30 03 1916, SD 812.00/17729, 17921.Google Scholar

106 Jefe politico, Tepic, to Gobernación, 27 Oct. 1916, AG 81/21.

107 El Demócrata, 25, 29 11 1915, 26 01 1916; Schmutz, Aguascalientes, 6 March; Hanna, Monterrey, 27 10 1916;Google Scholar SD 812.00/17476, 19664; Adleson, , p. 636.Google Scholar

108 US border report, 20 May; Thurstan, Mexico City, 24 Nov. 1916; SD 812.00/18284, 19943.

109 Rivas, S. to Chamber of Deputies, Hermosillo, 27 09 1919, Trabajo 34/2/8.Google Scholar

110 Husk, C., Santa Barbara (Parral) to Gral H. L. Scott, 12 05 1915, Scott Papers, Library of Congress, Box 18; El Demócrata, 03 1916.Google Scholar

111 Millán, A. to Aguilar, C., 23 03 1917, Carranza Archive.Google Scholar

112 Rosendo, Salazar, Las Pugnas de la Gleba (Mexico, 1923), pp. 148–50, 153–4, 166;Google ScholarCarr, , ‘Casa’, 629; c/o USS Marietta, Tampico, 5 04 1916 SD 812.00/19921.Google Scholar

113 Decree of 1 Aug. 1916, Carranza Archive doc. 10097.

114 Blocker, , Piedras, Negras, 17 02 1917, SD 812.00/20533.Google Scholar

115 E.g Evolución (Zacatecas), 1 10 1917.Google Scholar

116 Jiménez, D. A. to Aguilar, C., 27 01 1917, Carranza Archive.Google Scholar

117 Diario de los Debates, pp. 846, 848–50.Google Scholar

118 Carr, , Movimiento Obrero, 1, 129–35; Trabajo y Producción, 18 02 1917;Google Scholar for a personally graphic but politically haywire description of Espinosa Mireles and his crew of ‘demagogues, socialists, IWW's, and Boisheviki’, see O'Hea, , Gómez Palacio, 11 03 1918, FO 371/3243, 60324.Google Scholar

119 Arnaldo, Córdova, La Poiltica de Masas del Cardenismo (Mexico, 1976), p. 202.Google Scholar

120 Charles, S. Majer, Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany and Italy in the Decade After World War One (Princeton, 1975 ), pp. 39–60.Google Scholar Cf., for example, ‘the absolute repression by the Brazilian authorities of any attempt at trade union organisation, even the most peacful’, reported by the Italian consul at Sā Paulo: Michael Hall and Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, ‘Elements for an interpretation of the early Brazilian labor movement’, Paper given at the 44th International Congress of Americanists, Mimeo Manchester, Sept.1982; and Thomas, E. Skidmore, ‘Workers and Soldiers: Urban Labor Movements and Elite Responses in Twentieth Century Latin America’, in Bradford Burns, E. and Thomas, E. Skidmore, Elites, Masses and Modernisation in Latin America, 1870–1930, (Austin and London, 1979), pp. 99–103.Google Scholar

121 Ruiz, , Labor, p. 70.Google Scholar