Mexican Revolution (1910) and Russian Revolution

[Bilan]

I have been pondering something recently about these two.

It is said often by Marxists and Marxist Leninists that the "material conditions in Russia were not right for socialism at the time" etc, etc.

And so I wonder, would this apply to Mexico as well at the same period in time?

If the revolution had over come all dictators and governments and followed the ideas of Emiliano Zapata and the like, would the outcome have been the same in Mexico as Russia? Or, would it have been more successful due to the differing ideals of Zapata and the Zapatista armies compared to that of the Bolsheviks?

[Vargha Poralli]

It is said often by Marxists and Marxist Leninists that the "material conditions in Russia were not right for socialism at the time" etc, etc.


You don't understand the Material Conditions.

The Soviet Russia at the time of Russian Revolution was just out of some 7-8 years of WW1,brutal civil war and its economic base is in total ruins. The working class was greatly weakened by those things, and the peasantry could be given nothing in exchange for the grain. So in the begining there was war communism and in th end they have got NEP which is a general retreat towards capitalism.

In these conditions the bureaucracy of the party rose to power. And it did not simply took power like a cake walk. It met with stiff oppostion from within the party itself which is the reason for the brutal purges and Moscow trials.



If the revolution had over come all dictators and governments and followed the ideas of Emiliano Zapata and the like, would the outcome have been the same in Mexico as Russia?

For one no one can determine what if in history. That is why alternative history is a fiction.


Or, would it have been more successful due to the differing ideals of Zapata and the Zapatista armies compared to that of the Bolsheviks?

Well the Bolsheviks were succesfull in the revolution and the following civil war against the old order. Zapatistas were not much successfull.

Again what if theory is futile and idealist.

History should be used to learn from the past - not moralise from it - or prove my idealogy is better than your idealogy.

[Bilan]

Apologies, I think I came off in the wrong tone. I wasn't trying to prove whether my ideology is right or wrong, I was actually just genuinely curious about what Marxists and Marxist-Leninists (as well as everyone else) thought on the difference in the two, and what the difference in the outcome would've been.
The reason I place emphasis on those two is because of the views that I've come across from M.-Leninists on Russia (which is what I put in speech marks above).
It was not a point of idealogical superiority, just a general question.

So, I apologies for coming off the wrong way. :(

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 22, 2007 07:31 pm
Apologies, I think I came off in the wrong tone. I wasn't trying to prove whether I was right or wrong, I was actually just genuinely curious about what Marxists and Marxist-Leninists (as well as everyone else) thought on the difference in the two, and what the difference in the outcome would've been.
The reason I place emphasis on those two is because of the views that I've come across from M.-Leninists on Russia.
It was not a point of idealogical superiority, just a general question.

So, I apologies for coming off the wrong way. :(
No problems.

anyway my post still holds some reply to your questions.

The difference between the Mexican and Russian Revolution was the former degenerated quickly. It became a proxy war between two factions of ruling Bourgeoisie clique. And it also didn't change the Economic and Social structirs reamined the same.

OTOH the Russian Revolution completely restructured the Russian Society both in economic and Social structures. It recognised the right to self determination for the National Minorities oppressed by the Czars. And it did its best to its capacity to Transform the Society.

[gilhyle]

I think I dont really understand the question. The Mexican Revolution was a peasant uprising. Zapata 'ideals were those of a peasant leader ? How else could things have turned out ? Only two ways - a socialist leadership or happening AFTER the Russian Revolution and therefore able to depend on the USSR

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:13 am
I think I dont really understand the question. The Mexican Revolution was a peasant uprising. Zapata 'ideals were those of a peasant leader ? How else could things have turned out ? Only two ways - a socialist leadership or happening AFTER the Russian Revolution and therefore able to depend on the USSR
I don't really understand you're response.
The Mexican revolution was a revolt carried out by the peasants and indigenous peoples of Mexico against the ruler, Diaz. It was more than "just an uprising", if that is just a small thing anyway.
Zapata's ideas were indeed that of a peasant leader who was heavily influenced by socialism and anarchism, hence "Land and Liberty".

You didn't really answer my question either. my question was whether the differing ideals of Zapata (compared to that of Lenin) could have been better and more suited to a agricultural based country, such as Mexico in those times (and now), or if the result would've been like Russia's, or worse.

cheers.

[Bilan]

The difference between the Mexican and Russian Revolution was the former degenerated quickly. It became a proxy war between two factions of ruling Bourgeoisie clique. And it also didn't change the Economic and Social structirs reamined the same.

Indeed, this is true. But this was, in part, due to the assassination of Emiliano Zapata, and the crushing of peasant armies by the government.
Zapata's ideas would indeed have lead to restructuring of the economic, and in particular, the political and social structures.


OTOH the Russian Revolution completely restructured the Russian Society both in economic and Social structures. It recognised the right to self determination for the National Minorities oppressed by the Czars. And it did its best to its capacity to Transform the Society.

Indeed, this is true, but not what I'm getting at.
I'm more curious about what people think on what the outcome of the Mexican Revolution would be if Zapata and the peasant armies and succeeded in redistributing the land, guaranteeing justice, land, and liberty to the peasants.

Like, perhaps that, Lenin was before his time? That perhaps Zapata's ideas for action and change were more suitable to a country who's main industries are agricultural, and that Lenin's were more suitable too more industrialized countries -or perhaps not.

[Vargha Poralli]

Ideas do not just appear in the heads of people. The conditions they live in shape their ideas. In short being detremines conscience.


I'm more curious about what people think on what the outcome of the Mexican Revolution would be if Zapata and the peasant armies and succeeded in redistributing the land, guaranteeing justice, land, and liberty to the peasants.


I would be researching more why Zapata and peasant armies failed in the revolution rather than what they would have done if they are victorious.

The Mexican revolution is not a revolution at all in my opinion. The period from 1910-1914 was marred by many rebellions but they were just used by one faction of the Bourgeoisie to overpower the other.



Like, perhaps that, Lenin was before his time? That perhaps Zapata's ideas for action and change were more suitable to a country who's main industries are agricultural, and that Lenin's were more suitable too more industrialized countries -or perhaps not.

You are just assuming something about what Lenin meant and you base your arguments on that. My advise would be read something from him. My advice would be this work (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/index.htm) in which differentiates his theory from Mensheviks and Trotsky's.

Lenin's primary argument was in a Democratic revolution against Tsars it is the Task of the Proletariat in alliance with peasantry to complete the democratic tasks as the Russian Bourgeoisie are too cowardly to oppose the Autocracy and the Aristocrats supporting it. And the events of both February and October greatly supported the Lenin's theory and helped the Bolsheviks to push forward revolution to the next stage.

The setbacks of the German and Hungarian revolution was the primary factor for the degeneration of the Russian Revolution which is already facing its difficulties having occurred in a country which is backwards in major areas which is devastated by the Civil war.

On the other Hand the Mexican revoltuion did not have any means and vision. Its main weakness is the lack of any unifying factor which set apart various oppressed sections - peasants,workers and indigenous to fight alone rather than fight together. Bolsheviks on the other hand not only united the workers and peasants but also various nationalties of the Imperial Russia from Ukrainians to Turkmens.


my question was whether the differing ideals of Zapata (compared to that of Lenin) could have been better and more suited to a agricultural based country, such as Mexico in those times (and now), or if the result would've been like Russia's, or worse.

I don't know much about the ideas of Zapata but I am sure Lenin was not an idealist. The Bolsheviks did not recognise the Soviets initially during the 1905 revolution but in 1917 fully supported it. He had the flexibility to adopt to the differing situation and learn from events that where totally out of his control.

[Bilan]

Ideas do not just appear in the heads of people. The conditions they live in shape their ideas. In short being detremines conscience.

Of course, and some can be right, some can be wrong, some can be brilliant, but not suited at the present moment, etc.
But in a sense, that's what I'm getting at.



I would be researching more why Zapata and peasant armies failed in the revolution rather

I have, and there were various reasons, but we don't need to get into that.


than what they would have done if they are victorious.

hmm...



The Mexican revolution is not a revolution at all in my opinion. The period from 1910-1914 was marred by many rebellions but they were just used by one faction of the Bourgeoisie to overpower the other.

Well, comrade, that's slightly simplistic.
The Zapatista armies and peasant armies were not in the least bit part of the bourgeoisie; they were peasants! They were however sold out, and betrayed by the bourgeoisie.



You are just assuming something about what Lenin meant and you base your arguments on that. My advise would be read something from him. My advice would be this work (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/index.htm) in which differentiates his theory from Mensheviks and Trotsky's.

I have read Lenin's material, not all, not even heaps, but I have read some (Left wing communism, and State and Revolution), I didn't particularly enjoy it, let alone agree with it.
But personally, I think actions speak louder than words.
But, on top of that, I dont want this to turn into another discussion about Lenin.
But I appreciate the link, I shall get back to you on that.



On the other Hand the Mexican revoltuion did not have any means and vision. Its main weakness is the lack of any unifying factor which set apart various oppressed sections - peasants,workers and indigenous to fight alone rather than fight together


I don't know much about the ideas of Zapata

Don't those two contradict each other?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 23, 2007 10:23 am
The Zapatista armies and peasant armies were not in the least bit part of the bourgeoisie; they were peasants!
And there's your difference. In Russia the revolution was led by the proletariat while in Mexico it was the peasantry. Peasant rebellions are not exactly uncommon in history, and date back centuries, but ultimately nothing ever comes of them.

[Vargha Poralli]

Well, comrade, that's slightly simplistic.
The Zapatista armies and peasant armies were not in the least bit part of the bourgeoisie; they were peasants! They were however sold out, and betrayed by the bourgeoisie.

I was not trying to be as simplistic as you preceive to be.

Have you read the Peasant War in Germany by Engels ? Or Civil War in France by Marx ? Both of those works indicate the weakness of bourgeoisie to bring about a democratic revolution as they are faced menacingly by the Proletariat the revolutionary class ready to take out the next task.

The same thing happened in Mexico. Zapata and the peasants are not united with the working class and their struggles are not in common interest to both of their class.



I have read Lenin's material, not all, not even heaps, but I have read some (Left wing communism, and State and Revolution), I didn't particularly enjoy it, let alone agree with it.
But personally, I think actions speak louder than words.

There you make the mistake you don't understand what Lenin's theory is but assume to know what it is just by reading just two works he wrote. And what actions of Lenin speak louder than his words ?

Well another work of Lenin criticising (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm) Trotsky and Bukharin in the Trade union question.


Don't those two contradict each other?

I meant I have not read much about Zapata and his ideas but I have certainly looked at the Mexican revolution and have understood the basic conditions of those times.

I don't get why you confuse a lot with ideas and actions. Zapata's armies if they are victorious would have been forced to do some things that would be contradictory to their ideas but necessary to defend their revolution . World is much complex in the end not every body will get what we want.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+July 23, 2007 08:44 pm--> (ComradeOm @ July 23, 2007 08:44 pm)
Bite the [email protected] 23, 2007 10:23 am
The Zapatista armies and peasant armies were not in the least bit part of the bourgeoisie; they were peasants!
And there's your difference. In Russia the revolution was led by the proletariat while in Mexico it was the peasantry. Peasant rebellions are not exactly uncommon in history, and date back centuries, but ultimately nothing ever comes of them. [/b]
Comrade, you've missed my question.
Ignore the revolution, ignore the failure; concentrate on the ideas for what would be in place if the revolution had succeeded.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by gilhyle+July 22, 2007 02:13 pm--> (gilhyle @ July 22, 2007 02:13 pm)The Mexican Revolution was a peasant uprising.[/b]

Uh, no. The Mexican revolution did involve peasant insurrections, and as g.ram pointed out, "It became a proxy war between two factions of ruling Bourgeoisie clique." But that shouldn't distract from the massive working class militancy in Mexico at the time -- which is documented in John Hart's Revolutionary Syndicalism in Mexico (http://libcom.org/library/revolutionary-syndicalism-mexico-john-m-hart).

In my view, based on the information contained within that document, the ferocity and determination of the working class in Mexico at that time, rivals anything else from that time period. In fact, it probably exceeds it; with the working class in Mexico between 1905 and 1915, being at the forefront of the working class movement.


g.ram
And it also didn't change the Economic and Social structirs reamined the same.

It's my understanding that the Mexican revolution forced large scale agrarian reform -- which is significant, even if it's not ground breaking.
_ _ _ _ _

As for the original question, I don't think you could really say that had the working class in Mexico seized power, the result would have been the same as in Russia. Because, in my view, the obstacles the working class faced in each of those countries were rather different.

And whilst it's entirely possible that if the working class had seized power, the revolution would have degenerated as it did in Russia. The manner in which it would have degenerated would have been completely different, in my opinion. Not least because had the working class in Mexico seized power, they would have done it along different lines.

[gilhyle]

The question is what would have happened if the ideals of Zapata had been implemented, these being "redistributing the land, guaranteeing justice, land, and liberty to the peasants". In effect you are asking what would have happened if a revolution solving the land question without bourgeois leadership had happened.

What happens if the land question gets resolved in the way that creates a large number of small holdings and a state that does not discriminate in favour of large capitalists or large landowners (lets even assume the on-going integrity of a cadre of revolutionary leaders who continue for years to run a pure Rousseau-ian state dedicated to the justice and freedom for the people (these assumptions are a bit unrealistic, but not impossible)), is obvious.

In that situation what happens is that the fate of the country and the 'revolution' comes to depend on the international market for agricultural goods. It is a matter of time in that situation before a decline in the prices for agricultural goods or protectionism by other countries preventing the importation of agricultural goods or even aggression to undermine the revolutionary example leads to a deterioration in the balance of payments. The currency looses value, savings are sent out of the country and sooner or later a political clique emerges willing to 'deal' with the problem.