Institutional Revolutionary Party of Mexico

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Mexican section of the so-called "Labour and Socialist International," the Institutional Revolutionary Party, was a key player in the Mexican Revolution from 1919-1940.

Nowadays it's a neoliberal outfit, but back in 1946 why did the party choose "institutional" as part of its label?

As a side note, it was Cardenas before Camacho who expropriated all foreign oil interests and nationalized many different industries.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

My understanding is that the PRI was a left wing version of the Latin American corporate state model.Until the system was dismantled under US pressure the system in Mexico functioned as a complex capitalist patronage network. The working class did have more rights and more room to assert themselves then they do today and Mexican leaders made anti-imperialist noises. On the other hand they could be brutal in cracking down on threats from the left, as in the student massacre of 1968.

[Kiev Communard]

Well, the effective founder of PRI, General Plutarco Elías Calles was what one would call a Corporatist politician, openly admiring Mussolini and supporting pro-Nazi Gold shirts movement. It should be noted, though, that originally he began his political career as a sort of left-wing Social-Democrat :D. I used this example simply to provide a context of extremely contradictory ideological beginnings of PRI. Besides, it was Calles, not Cardenas or Camacho, who actually proclaimed the need to "institutionalize" the Mexican Revolution back in late 1920s (i.e. to create a "strong State").

[S.Artesian]

To understand the evolution of the forces that became the PRI, we need to go back and understand what precipitated the Mexican Revolution, the limitations of that revolution, the limitations of its most "heroic" elements-- Zapata and Villa.

We have, first and foremost a peasant war, initiated by the aggrandizement of land and labor of the indigenous people; the integration of the haciendas, and the sugar cane, hemp, and pulque plantations as units of production for the world markets; the extremely fragmented nature of the economy [which is exactly what uneven and combined development signifies]; the overproduction of capital even in, especially in this fragmented, rural-subsistence/hacienda economy, with a domestic market so restricted that the importation of advanced capital manufacturing goods could not be supported-- profitably "amortized" in the economy; and the inability of the proletariat to establish its own program, party, demands in opposition to that of the "military-bourgeoisie" of the Constitutionalists. Obregon for example [surely the most capable, most far-sighted of that group] was able to organize "red battalions" of workers to combat Villa.

Cardenas for all his "radicalism" was never able to accomplish a radical transformation of the economy as the bourgeoisie, particularly the plantation bourgeoisie, sabotaged and destroyed infrastructure, poisoned water supplies etc. when expropriation was on the horizon. And at the end of his term? Mexico attaches itself as an appendage of the US, being a contract producer of goods for the US war needs, to the degree that hunger and privation increased among sectors of the rural poor.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, the effective founder of PRI, General Plutarco Elías Calles was what one would call a Corporatist politician, openly admiring Mussolini and supporting pro-Nazi Gold shirts movement. It should be noted, though, that originally he began his political career as a sort of left-wing Social-Democrat :D. I used this example simply to provide a context of extremely contradictory ideological beginnings of PRI.

I think the Latin American homage to Mussolini from the PRI to the Peronistas was skin-deep (except for Pinochet). Much of "left-wing social democracy" is already corporatist. In my works which you have, for example, I wrote of Hilferding wanting to set up some sort of "economic parliament" in which workers and managers could mediate (all I did was purge this idea of his from corporatist influences by stressing direct representation).


Besides, it was Calles, not Cardenas or Camacho, who actually proclaimed the need to "institutionalize" the Mexican Revolution back in late 1920s (i.e. to create a "strong State").

I figured that "institutionalizing" was in reference to the state, but I was wondering if it meant something more, like in civic engagement or social movements.

[S.Artesian]

Calles, Jefe Maximo, controlled the Mexican presidency up to and including the election of Cardenas. Cardenas was able to isolate Calles, and break his grip of the politics of the "institutionalized revolution."

Calles romance with fascism, real enough, essentially occurs after his actual term as president. During that period of his presidency, he was denounced as a communist by the US, who took to calling Mexico, "Soviet Mexico," for Calles attempt to impose article 27 of the Constitution on the US oil companies and expropriate their holdings.

At the end of his presidency, and once out of office, he became much more conservative-- banning strikes and the CP, ending support for Sandino, suspending all land distribution.

[Kiev Communard]

Calles, Jefe Maximo, controlled the Mexican presidency up to and including the election of Cardenas. Cardenas was able to isolate Calles, and break his grip of the politics of the "institutionalized revolution."

Calles romance with fascism, real enough, essentially occurs after his actual term as president. During that period of his presidency, he was denounced as a communist by the US, who took to calling Mexico, "Soviet Mexico," for Calles attempt to impose article 27 of the Constitution on the US oil companies and expropriate their holdings.

At the end of his presidency, and once out of office, he became much more conservative-- banning strikes and the CP, ending support for Sandino, suspending all land distribution.

But was he genuinely left-wing during his presidency? His cynical shift to the right in the years of maximato was, in my view, merely the revelation of his true political views, as opposed to the times of his presidency, when Calles was forced to rely on the unions' support.

[S.Artesian]

But was he genuinely left-wing during his presidency? His cynical shift to the right in the years of maximato was, in my view, merely the revelation of his true political views, as opposed to the times of his presidency, when Calles was forced to rely on the unions' support.

The only thing genuine about el Jefe was his cynicism. I don't think he was genuinely anything except for conflating state and personal power.