Francisco Villa

[Bala Perdida]

What do you guys think about the 'revolutionary' Francisco 'Pancho' Villa. His upbringing was one that many socialists can, and do, sympathize with. He waged war against the exploiting class during the Mexican revolution, only to become a land owner himself. He is also have said to have used child soldiers, as well as mistreating women. He saw women as objects, in other words. These are things I heard about the man. Some I've seen evidence for, others not so much.

In short, I can sympathize with Villa's struggles, but I don't like him as a fighter. I don't think he can accurately be called a revolutionary, defiantly not a socialist. I, and many socialists, prefer Zapata as a better revolutionary. I'm not sure about the communist attitude of him at the time, but this was an interesting article I found by an anarchist at the time. This was a popular paper, so I take it as a view shared by many early 20th century anarchists.

VILLA OR WILSON-WHICH IS THE BANDIT?
[Vol. 1, #9, 3/15/1916]
VILLA

Pancho Villa is the descendant of a long line of peons whose lives were spent in
hard toil, cultivating the soil of Mexico and helping to produce foodstuffs for their
fellow countrymen and profits for their exploiters.
Villa followed the same calling. His childhood was dark and dreary. The son
of a peon, he passed his early youth in hard farm work, helping to support his
family. The hand of greed lay heavy upon the people of Mexico. The hardest toil
barely sufficed to keep the Villa family alive.
As a young man, Pancho saw an opportunity to improve his condition by
securing work in a neighboring town. He took his widowed mother and younger
children with him, he the chief support of the family. It was a garrison town, and 1 24 The Berkman Reader: Part Two
one day Pancho learned that his oldest sister, a beautiful girl of 15, was seduced
by an army officer. Pancho set out to find the man. He demanded that he make
amends. The officer scorned the low peon, and young Villa shot and killed him.
The authorities ordered the arrest of Villa. Pancho knew that he, a despised
peon, could expect no justice at the hands of the masters. He fled to the moun*
tains. The government set a price on his head and declared him an outlaw.
But the townspeople knew Villa and the story of his wrongs. They admired him
for challenging the right of an officer to violate the daughter of a peon. They aided
Pancho and by their help he was able to avoid arrest. He gathered around him
a circle of other peons embittered by the injustice and oppression they suffered.
From time to time they made excursions to neighboring estates, expropriating
rich land sharks and sharing the spoils of victory with the needy peons. He was
an outlaw, but the people loved him and blessed his name.
When the Revolution broke out, Villa j oined forces with the peons fighting for
a chance to live, for a little land and liberty. He has kept up the fight against
tremendous odds. Nor has Wall Street been able to corrupt him and buy him off,
as they did with Carranza.
WILSON
Unlike Villa and his hard-working progenitors, Wilson comes from a long line
of exploiters. His forefathers did neither spin nor sow. Yet, they always enjoyed
the good things of life, parasites on the back of labor. Wilson himself, unlike
Villa, has never tilled the ground nor worked in mine or factory. He has not
helped in any productive or otherwise useful work. On the contrary, as teacher
and college professor, he used every effort to poison the young minds with the
dogmas and dominant views that support pr('sent institutions and make lliUl t:
secure the bondage of the people. As President, he has proved himself a menace
to the welfare and peace of the country, a weather cock constantly swayed by
the breezes from Wall Street. A puppet of the money magnates, his attitude on
i mportant issues has been dictated by Big Business. Preaching peace and sanity
a few months ago, he has suddenly veered into the camp of mad militarism. The
compelling hand of the munition and steel trust is dictating his policies. And
now he cries loudest for the biggest navy of the world. The priests of Mammon
got him, body and soul.
At this very moment Wilson is preparing to invade Mexico-poor, bleeding
Mexico, for years torn by inner strife and weakened by the long struggle. He
has ordered a "punitive expedition" against Villa. It is no secret that back of
this outcry for the punishment of Villa are the American political and commer*
cial pirates eager for the invasion of Mexico in the holy name of greater profits.
Villa killed a Mexican officer to avenge the ruin of his sister. Wilson is prepar*
ing to kill thousands of Mexicans on the pretext of avenging the death of some
Americans. Which is the greater bandit-Villa or Wilson?
There is only this difference between them: Villa had the courage to do his
own vengeance, taking the risks and profiting nothing himself.
Wilson sits safely in the White House and orders others to do the dirty work.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Pancho Villa was not a particularly politically conscious individual - he did not have any kind of political program against Capitalism. And as you noted, he was well known for his machismo. Of course, he did come from a poor background, but this doesn't mean that he wanted to overturn Capitalism. He merely wanted a more populist capitalism that could provide for him and his men.

He was a decent insurgent leader, but overall he had a very limited command of military strategy and tactics in the modern era. With his early successes he was able to build a capable and powerful army which could have challenged the Mexican state, and he and Zapata were even strong enough to occupy Mexico City together, before ceding power to other revolutionary leaders. Later, Villa ended up in conflict with those leaders, and his army was battered and ravaged by a weaker, less capable professional army under Obregon because of his inability to respond to modern weapons and tactics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Celaya) This is despite the fact that his own armed forces were technologically innovative. He was chased into the desert with his trains destroyed or captured and with the Mexican government re-asserting control over the territories he once ran.



As for the punitive expedition, as far as I have read it was a ploy by Pancho Villa to unite Mexican nationalists behind his at that point floundering movement. He had lost many of his best men, many of his armaments and most of the territory he controlled, and the best way to stay relevant was to instigate a war with the US. It half-worked, and he gained legitimacy again with the American army chasing him across the desert, causing damage and irritating the local population without any real response from the Mexican State for some time.

I think he is more interesting as a rebel leader than any kind of revolutionary ideologue. He doesn't have anything to offer in that department. I think Anarchists supported him because he was aligned at certain points with anarchist-influenced groups, because he was opposed to American imperialism in Mexico and because he was a part of a liberal uprising against an oppressive positivist state. I don't think it's because of any real ideological credibility on his part.

[exeexe]

It says here
http://history1900s.about.com/cs/panchovilla/p/panchovilla.htm
that he wanted an agrarian reform

So his politics were not revolutionary but reformist. He probably took up arms because he was forced into it.
It also says that

On May 29, 1911, Villa married Maria Luz Corral and tried to settle down to a quiet life.So he tried to get out of all the fightings..

And in the end it says:

De la Huerta wanted peace in Mexico so negotiated with Villa for his retirement. Part of the peace agreement was that Villa would receive a hacienda in Chihuahua. Villa retired from revolutionary life in 1920 but had only a short retirement for he was gunned down in his car on July 20, 1923.

So he acquired a hacienda not through buying it with money but was granted it..