bcbm
23rd October 2005, 22:48
I did this review for my one of my classes, so the style is a little rigid. Apologies in advance.
---------------------------------------------
Donald C. Hodges, Mexican Anarchism After the Revolution (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1995), x, 251, xiv pp.
Reviewed in American Historical Review, Vol. 102 (February 1997) 236 and Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 77 (February 1997) 136.
Daniel C. Hodges was born on October 22, 1923 in Fort Worth, Texas. He was then raised in Argentina but returned to the US for college in 1942. After attending several schools, he began teaching philosophy at various colleges beginning in 1949 and earned his PhD in 1954. He currently teaches philosophy and political science at the University of Florida, Tallahassee. He has been or continues to be a member of a number of academic groups, including the American Philosophical Association, the Society for the Philosophical Study of Dialectical, the Society for the Philosophical Study of Marxism and the Radical Philosophy Association. In addition to his teaching career, he has also edited and authored a number of books, including Revaloracion de la guerrilla urban, Mexico, 1910-1982: Reform or Revolution, Intellectual Foundations of the Nicaraguan Revolution and America's New Economic Order among numerous others.
While on sabbatical in Cuernavaca, Mexico in 1974-75, he began to research anarchist thought in Mexico and came into contact with the Mexican anarchists in the Grupo Informe de Cuernavaca. One of these anarchists, Juan de Dios Vargas Sánchez, volunteered to help Hodges with his research and act as a sort of passport into the anarchist underground. Sánchez had been a participant in student struggles and an armed militant in defense of the peasantry and squatters. He helped introduce Hodges to his primary informant on the anarchist history of the 1960’s and 70’s, the anarchist Mónico Rodríguez Gómez. They exchanged letters and had interviews for a number of years, even after Gómez’ 1992 stroke. Following the publishing of his book about urban guerrillas in Mexico, Hodges was able to travel more freely without his “passport” in the anarchist underground, and what he’s learned over the course of 20 years is compiled in this book.
The book sets out to trace the history of anarchism in Mexican politics following the rise of the Official Party of the Revolution, later the PRI, and the destruction of official anarchist organizations and unions. This is a subject not dealt with in any other radical history of Mexico and so the book helps fill in various gaps and build off other histories. It seems directed more towards those with a decent knowledge of Mexican history and politics but is fairly accessible to beginners in the field as well. Its reprint of various communiqués and plans, in English for the first time, may prove of special interest to those interested in Mexican history with little knowledge of Spanish.
The book is organized into six chapters, a conclusion and a postscript, with some degree of overlap between the histories covered in each chapter, although it still remains fairly clear. Its narrative begins slightly before the revolution, with the creation of the Mexican Liberal Party by a conspiratorial group of anarchists, including the famous Ricardo Flores Magón, which aims to incite the Mexican people to revolution and, once that is accomplished in 1910, launches a communist/anarchist program on September 23, 1911. This lead to a split in the party, with the radical wing taking refuge in other organizations such as anarchist unions and the moderate wing continued in electoral politics. Following the success of the Official Revolutionary Party and its consolidation of power, anarchist organizations were suppressed and most official history declares anarchist influence dead in Mexico. This, however, ignores the reality of the situation and the infiltration of anarchists and anarchist ideas into other movements. One display of this comes through the Mexican Communist Party (PCM), which became one of the most left-leaning and independent communist parties in the world and was routinely criticized for violations of international party line. The ideas of Magón and his ideological heirs became involved in the PCM and helped to push its involvement in organization non-governmental unions and worker-peasant organizations. These organizations also inherited a lot from Magón and anarchism. They operated outside of the official state groups and unions and were quick to strike when their demands were not met, pitting themselves against powerful bosses and the government. The peasant organizations drew from the memory of Zapata, himself influenced by anarchism, and began occupying unused land and large ranches when the government failed to carry out the Mexican Constitution’s land reform policies.
As these movements were being repressed by the Mexican government, the July 26 Movement in Cuba had just won its war against the Batista government. As this movement turned towards socialism and its hero Che Guevara began to propose a strategy of direct action and insurrection reminiscent of the anarchist Bakunin, the radical left of the PCM and many militants from peasant and worker organizations were inspired to move in a similar direction and began the armed struggle. Two of the most famous Mexican guerrilla leaders, Jaramillo and Cabañas, cited Magón and Zapata as their role models and espoused a kind of ascetic socialism with anarchist undercurrents. This was especially clear in their assistance in further land occupations and their retaliations against bosses and government officials who attempted to crush worker and peasant movements.
While these movements and struggles were primarily rural or in smaller, industrial areas, another movement with anarchist elements was brewing in the large cities, primarily in the Federal District. This was the student movement of the 1960’s and 70’s. Throughout this period, numerous demonstrations devolved into riots and several became outright massacres by government troops. Influenced by the numerous revolutionary movements around the world, such as those in Cuba and Vietnam, the students sought more control over the university institutions and an end to government repression of their political movements. On the heels of the student movement, a revival in anarchism appeared. Many critiques of the PCM arose from an anarchist perspective and professors began to lecture on anarchists and various Anarcho-theories and laid the foundations for a second, larger revival in the late 1980’s and early 90’s.
The culmination of this revival, and final chapter in the book, was the emergence of the Zapatista National Liberation Army in 1994, which launched a program very similar to earlier agrarian anarchist proposals. These new rebels also list their influences as Zapata and Magón and share many similarities with past rebels such as Jaramillo, showing that anarchism has indeed survived beneath the surface in Mexican politics.
The general theme and conclusion that seemed to run through the book was that, although official anarchist organizations disappeared in Mexico after 1920, anarchism was far from dead. It actually played a major role in all of the major leftist movements and organizations that arose in Mexico in the following decades. It also continues to inspire and influence a new generation of rebels and radicals. Hodges’ conclusion is very different from others in the field, who suggest anarchism was not particularly influential in Mexican politics. Judging from the evidence in this account, it would seem this new account is accurate, but the subject certainly requires more research.
The sources used by Hodges to write this book seem relatively limited. Although he relies primarily on primary sources, they come from only a dozen or so militants who lived through the movements in question and the interviews and letters he received from them, as well as a number of organizational documents. He also uses other studies and histories, but not to any comparable extent.
One area of the book that seemed to be lacking was its treatment of opinion and bias. The author is trying to show that anarchism was a major force in Mexican politics, so he only focuses on evidence for that and deals very little with counter evidence, except to either discount it or try and show it as actually being anarchist in nature. As he’s working off the words of people who were actually involved, I don’t think this makes his study so biased as to not be credibly, but it does make it necessary for a deeper, more objective look to be taken into the subject.
The reviews of the book that I found were of good quality and gave both praise and criticism for the book. The American Historical Review finds it to be a “compelling read” but also notes the lack of diversity in sources and the book’s slanted look at the subject. The Hispanic American Historical Review offers a slightly different review, as it focuses on two books in the same review and occasionally contrasts them. About Hodges’ book, it considers the use of anarchists who lived through the events as strength, but also notes the bias of the account and criticizes Hodges for not acknowledging the ethical problems of Magón hiding his party’s true intentions.
Ultimately, I found this to be a very interesting and educational read, as well as inspiring. It gave me a better feel for Mexican politics, which I was largely unfamiliar with, as well as the general history of Mexican struggles in the 20th century. This knowledge will definitely be useful to my own understand of history and anarchist theory. The stories of various groups and their ideologies were also inspiring as they presented me with many new ways to look at the problems facing society today and how they can be remedied. In particular, the conspiratorial approach of Magón has some appeal and the idea of playing into already existing revolutionary movements or struggles is very interesting and useful. I would definitely recommend this book to friends of mine interested in Mexico or anarchism, or just politics and history in general, though I’d definitely note that it is a biased account.
---------------------------------------------
Donald C. Hodges, Mexican Anarchism After the Revolution (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1995), x, 251, xiv pp.
Reviewed in American Historical Review, Vol. 102 (February 1997) 236 and Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 77 (February 1997) 136.
Daniel C. Hodges was born on October 22, 1923 in Fort Worth, Texas. He was then raised in Argentina but returned to the US for college in 1942. After attending several schools, he began teaching philosophy at various colleges beginning in 1949 and earned his PhD in 1954. He currently teaches philosophy and political science at the University of Florida, Tallahassee. He has been or continues to be a member of a number of academic groups, including the American Philosophical Association, the Society for the Philosophical Study of Dialectical, the Society for the Philosophical Study of Marxism and the Radical Philosophy Association. In addition to his teaching career, he has also edited and authored a number of books, including Revaloracion de la guerrilla urban, Mexico, 1910-1982: Reform or Revolution, Intellectual Foundations of the Nicaraguan Revolution and America's New Economic Order among numerous others.
While on sabbatical in Cuernavaca, Mexico in 1974-75, he began to research anarchist thought in Mexico and came into contact with the Mexican anarchists in the Grupo Informe de Cuernavaca. One of these anarchists, Juan de Dios Vargas Sánchez, volunteered to help Hodges with his research and act as a sort of passport into the anarchist underground. Sánchez had been a participant in student struggles and an armed militant in defense of the peasantry and squatters. He helped introduce Hodges to his primary informant on the anarchist history of the 1960’s and 70’s, the anarchist Mónico Rodríguez Gómez. They exchanged letters and had interviews for a number of years, even after Gómez’ 1992 stroke. Following the publishing of his book about urban guerrillas in Mexico, Hodges was able to travel more freely without his “passport” in the anarchist underground, and what he’s learned over the course of 20 years is compiled in this book.
The book sets out to trace the history of anarchism in Mexican politics following the rise of the Official Party of the Revolution, later the PRI, and the destruction of official anarchist organizations and unions. This is a subject not dealt with in any other radical history of Mexico and so the book helps fill in various gaps and build off other histories. It seems directed more towards those with a decent knowledge of Mexican history and politics but is fairly accessible to beginners in the field as well. Its reprint of various communiqués and plans, in English for the first time, may prove of special interest to those interested in Mexican history with little knowledge of Spanish.
The book is organized into six chapters, a conclusion and a postscript, with some degree of overlap between the histories covered in each chapter, although it still remains fairly clear. Its narrative begins slightly before the revolution, with the creation of the Mexican Liberal Party by a conspiratorial group of anarchists, including the famous Ricardo Flores Magón, which aims to incite the Mexican people to revolution and, once that is accomplished in 1910, launches a communist/anarchist program on September 23, 1911. This lead to a split in the party, with the radical wing taking refuge in other organizations such as anarchist unions and the moderate wing continued in electoral politics. Following the success of the Official Revolutionary Party and its consolidation of power, anarchist organizations were suppressed and most official history declares anarchist influence dead in Mexico. This, however, ignores the reality of the situation and the infiltration of anarchists and anarchist ideas into other movements. One display of this comes through the Mexican Communist Party (PCM), which became one of the most left-leaning and independent communist parties in the world and was routinely criticized for violations of international party line. The ideas of Magón and his ideological heirs became involved in the PCM and helped to push its involvement in organization non-governmental unions and worker-peasant organizations. These organizations also inherited a lot from Magón and anarchism. They operated outside of the official state groups and unions and were quick to strike when their demands were not met, pitting themselves against powerful bosses and the government. The peasant organizations drew from the memory of Zapata, himself influenced by anarchism, and began occupying unused land and large ranches when the government failed to carry out the Mexican Constitution’s land reform policies.
As these movements were being repressed by the Mexican government, the July 26 Movement in Cuba had just won its war against the Batista government. As this movement turned towards socialism and its hero Che Guevara began to propose a strategy of direct action and insurrection reminiscent of the anarchist Bakunin, the radical left of the PCM and many militants from peasant and worker organizations were inspired to move in a similar direction and began the armed struggle. Two of the most famous Mexican guerrilla leaders, Jaramillo and Cabañas, cited Magón and Zapata as their role models and espoused a kind of ascetic socialism with anarchist undercurrents. This was especially clear in their assistance in further land occupations and their retaliations against bosses and government officials who attempted to crush worker and peasant movements.
While these movements and struggles were primarily rural or in smaller, industrial areas, another movement with anarchist elements was brewing in the large cities, primarily in the Federal District. This was the student movement of the 1960’s and 70’s. Throughout this period, numerous demonstrations devolved into riots and several became outright massacres by government troops. Influenced by the numerous revolutionary movements around the world, such as those in Cuba and Vietnam, the students sought more control over the university institutions and an end to government repression of their political movements. On the heels of the student movement, a revival in anarchism appeared. Many critiques of the PCM arose from an anarchist perspective and professors began to lecture on anarchists and various Anarcho-theories and laid the foundations for a second, larger revival in the late 1980’s and early 90’s.
The culmination of this revival, and final chapter in the book, was the emergence of the Zapatista National Liberation Army in 1994, which launched a program very similar to earlier agrarian anarchist proposals. These new rebels also list their influences as Zapata and Magón and share many similarities with past rebels such as Jaramillo, showing that anarchism has indeed survived beneath the surface in Mexican politics.
The general theme and conclusion that seemed to run through the book was that, although official anarchist organizations disappeared in Mexico after 1920, anarchism was far from dead. It actually played a major role in all of the major leftist movements and organizations that arose in Mexico in the following decades. It also continues to inspire and influence a new generation of rebels and radicals. Hodges’ conclusion is very different from others in the field, who suggest anarchism was not particularly influential in Mexican politics. Judging from the evidence in this account, it would seem this new account is accurate, but the subject certainly requires more research.
The sources used by Hodges to write this book seem relatively limited. Although he relies primarily on primary sources, they come from only a dozen or so militants who lived through the movements in question and the interviews and letters he received from them, as well as a number of organizational documents. He also uses other studies and histories, but not to any comparable extent.
One area of the book that seemed to be lacking was its treatment of opinion and bias. The author is trying to show that anarchism was a major force in Mexican politics, so he only focuses on evidence for that and deals very little with counter evidence, except to either discount it or try and show it as actually being anarchist in nature. As he’s working off the words of people who were actually involved, I don’t think this makes his study so biased as to not be credibly, but it does make it necessary for a deeper, more objective look to be taken into the subject.
The reviews of the book that I found were of good quality and gave both praise and criticism for the book. The American Historical Review finds it to be a “compelling read” but also notes the lack of diversity in sources and the book’s slanted look at the subject. The Hispanic American Historical Review offers a slightly different review, as it focuses on two books in the same review and occasionally contrasts them. About Hodges’ book, it considers the use of anarchists who lived through the events as strength, but also notes the bias of the account and criticizes Hodges for not acknowledging the ethical problems of Magón hiding his party’s true intentions.
Ultimately, I found this to be a very interesting and educational read, as well as inspiring. It gave me a better feel for Mexican politics, which I was largely unfamiliar with, as well as the general history of Mexican struggles in the 20th century. This knowledge will definitely be useful to my own understand of history and anarchist theory. The stories of various groups and their ideologies were also inspiring as they presented me with many new ways to look at the problems facing society today and how they can be remedied. In particular, the conspiratorial approach of Magón has some appeal and the idea of playing into already existing revolutionary movements or struggles is very interesting and useful. I would definitely recommend this book to friends of mine interested in Mexico or anarchism, or just politics and history in general, though I’d definitely note that it is a biased account.