Figure 1.--Am American in Mexico during the Revolution took this AZO postcard back snapshot which he labeled only as 'Mexican Children During Mexican War 1914'. The children look Spanish so we are guessing that they are the children of a small-scale ranchero."

The Mexican Revolution was at its heart was based on the country's failure as a nation. Mexico like much of Latin America had failed to create societies that either brought a decent standard of life to its people or generated any spark of learning leading to economic or scientific advance. In sharp contrast Mexico found itself located next to the greatest industrial power house of the world and one that was rapidly rising--the United States. The question becomes, why had Mexico and the rest of Latin America failed so badly. The Marxist explanation of this is American and European exploitation. There is in fact little evidence of this. In fact, the countries most involved in intentional trade were for the most part the most advanced. And the both Spain an Portugal failed to develop into prosperous advanced countries. New Spain was founded about a century before the first English colony and even in the colonial era, Mexico showed no indication of developing a modern society. What is more likely the cause is the country's social structure. The structure of the upper middle and lower class all acted to prevent the development of a modern, prosperous country. The Porfiriato made some progress in modernizing Mexico's infrastructure, but not progress in creating a modern society. And much of the benefit of the Porfiriato flowed to groups whose interests lay in maintaining the existing social structure. The upper-class controlled much of the country's wealth. And a relatively small middle-class saw its interests laid as primarily with supporting the upper-class an existing social structure.

Importance

The Mexican Revolution was at its heart was based on the country's failure as a nation. Mexico like much of Latin America had failed to create societies that either brought a decent standard of life to its people or generated any spark of learning leading to economic or scientific advance. In sharp contrast Mexico found itself located next to th greatest industrial power house of the world and one that was rapidly rising--the United States. The question becomes, why had Mexico and the rest of Latin America failed so badly. The Marxist explanation of this is American and European exploitation. There is in fact little evidence of this. In fact, the countries most involved in international trade were for the most part the most advanced. And the both Spain an Portugal failed to develop into prosperous advanced countries. New Spain was founded about a century before the first English colony and even in the colonial era, Mexico showed no indication of developing a modern society. What is more likely the cause is the country's social structure.

Structure

The structure of the upper middle and lower class all acted to prevent the development of a modern, prosperous country. The Porfiriato made some progress in modernizing Mexico's infrastructure, but not progress in creating a modern society. And much of the benefit of the Porfiriato flowed to groups whose interests lay in maintaining the existing social Structure. The upper-class controlled much of the country's wealth. And a relatively small middle-class saw its interests laid as primarily with supporting the upper-class an existing social structure.

Upper Class

The Mexican upper class consisted of families which had accumulated great wealth, primarily based on land holdings. It was essentially a landed aristocracy. Some of the families date back to the Conquistadores that defeated the Aztecs and other Native American peoples. Other has more recent Mexican histories. The establishment began with the granting of land to the Conquistadores -- the encomiendas. Often the holdings were built over time by encroaching on the lands of small proprietors, in many cases Native American communities. With their vast holdings, the hcendados lived in a near regal style on vast hacienda estates. During the Porfiriato and steps toward modernizing Mexico, the upper class became even richer, able to manipulate the legal system and invest in the new industries being created. The upper class was not limited to the hacendados, although they dominated the system. there were also mine owners, the upper-echelon of the bureaucracy, and the most important figure in the rising business class.

Middle class

The Mexican middle-class was very small, as was was the case throughout Latin America. Only in countries that had begun to modernize and industrialize do we see the rise of the middle class. The Mexican middle-class was described by one historian as, "A bureaucratic class living with its eyes trained on the upper class, despising manual labor and always anxious to improve its position by legitimate or illegitimate means as as to be able in greater security and greater luxury ..." [Handman, p. 207.] Also included in the middle class was the very conservative clergy. Mexico was, however changing, in part because of the Porfiriato. There was a new generation of rising young men, fired with idealism. Francisco Madero was one of them. They believed in law and that elections should be elections. And into this mix came foreigners. Mex with technical knowledge needed by the railroads and new industries. They came from countries enjoying the rule of law. Another group forming the rural lower middle-class group were the larger rural rancheros as well as foremen and supervisors on the large estate political overseers, and perhaps some of higher-class personal servants. Much of the middle class according to one source, "... lived in constant fear of a rainy day. The lower middle class barely made both ends meet." [Handman, p. 208.]

Lower class

Most of the Mexico rural population very poor, primarily because the people working the land did not own it or very much of it. This was the land ownership pattern for much of the world population for most of history--except for the United States. The Mexican lower class fell into two distinct and uneven groups. The first managed to live in at or just above the poverty, but with some basic dignity. This included independent farmers with small land holdings, too small to support decent life style. They were also under presser from the of the Grandes always eager to acquire more land. And many of the rural lower-middle class was poor enough to cross over the border element into the lower class. The great bulk of the lower class and rural population was the landless agricultural labor. The lower class continued the miserable existence that had been the case since the Conquest and colonial times. The Porfiriato had introduced industry, but the growing urban work force while brought unto the money economy, continued to exist at very low levels. One author provides a concise picture of the Mexican lower classes. "The city proletariat lived from hand to mouth. The ranchero lived in dread in dread of of the large landowner's [hacendados) machinations to deprive him of his land while himself was constantly scheming how to deprive the Indian who happened to possess a patch of ground. The large mass of agricultural laborers [peones] were either managing to eke out a miserable existence by means of that very path of ground with the additional labor on the land of the large landowner (peon eventual), or living under a system approaching forced labor peon acasillado) on the land of the hacendado, fed on nothing but corn cakes [tortillas] spiced with chile, a semi-occasional allowance of beans, an occasional allowance of meat, but a reasonably steady flow of pulque [moonshine tequila]." [Handman, p. 208.] The level of suppression and exploitation is difficult to measure in qualitative terms. This is because much of the rural poor were barely involved in the monied economy. Ans since especially the Indians hardly involved at all. And even if involved, wages are an imperfect measuring tool. This is because exchange rates fluctuate and high wages may nor be a valid indicator independent of prices. One researcher using adult heights provides insights as to how the lower classes fared during the Porfiriato. He found that the benefits of industrialization fomented during the Díaz regime 'did not have a favorable impact on the well being of the laboring population.' [Lopez-Alonso]

The Porfiriato System

The Porfiriato introduced change in Mexico's beginning the modernization of the country through limited industrialization. This created an urban proletariat for the first time, but did nothing to broaden the welfare of the lower class, Instead the benefits flowed mostly to the upper-class which supported the regime. Mexican society was essentially a powder keg and the addition of an urban proletariat added a new source of instability to the rising resentment on the countryside. Porfirio Díiaz and his cientificos led by José Yves Limantour,Secretary of Finance, promoted industrial development and kept the system in place for 30 years, but only by ruling with an iron hand. There were two basic methods. The first method of the Porfirato was the iron hand, developing an essentially lawless police state. According to one observer, "Díaz's method was a quick, direct, and immediately effective one. It consisted in using a devoted bureaucracy for the purpose of meting out death and destruction any opposition whatsoever, in grading the press and in otherwise stifling any attempt at the expression of an independent opinion which might be interpreted as subversive pf the existing order of things." [Handman, p. 208.] Díaz also sought to incorporate some dissenters into the Porfirato, usually by exanding the bureaucracy. This was, however, a destabilizing effort because as the bureaucracy increased in size. so did Díaz's ability to pay attractive salaries. The second method of controlling the country was developed by Limantour, the acknowledged captain of the cientificos and possible success to Díaz. Limantour developed a more benign approach based on a a racial and sociological assessment of Mexican society. He concluded mass of the Indian and Mestizo agricultural population was essentially indiscernible in terms of higher culture and was essentially doomed by nature to be the slave or serf of Mexicans of European origins. Limantour was born in Mexico but descended from a French family and his cultural ties were with France, not Mexico. His felt that his assessment of the rural poor assessments of the rural poor was safe despite their huge share of the population. He believed the rural masses would not revolt despite their poverty unless led by urban leaders. His policies were thus aimed at keeping the urban population contented by providing bread--relatively low cost food. As to afford this he sought to make Mexico a safe and profitable place for foreign investment. The draw was Mexico's mineral resources. Foreign investment would create jobs for the urban proletariat and increasing income for the state through both taxes and trade duties (imports and exports). The income could maintain both the army and increasing number of bureaucrats needed to run the Porfiriato. [Handman, p. 209.] An American observer describes the dynamic that maintained the Pofiriato in power for three decades. "The two systems worked hand in hand. The first guaranteed the peace necessary for capital known traditionally to be timid; the second guaranteed the capital for the maintaining of that peace of suppression and incorporation. A working class hat was cowed and afraid, a bureaucratic class standing under the cornucopia, however of the treasury and upper class sharing with the foreign capitalist blessings of investment and dividends in mines and public utilities why could not the peace be kept, and the status quo prolonged indefinitely?" [Handman, p. 209.]

Sources

Handman, Max Sylvius. "The Mexican Revolution and the standard of living," The Southwestern Political Science Quarterly Vol. I, No. 3 (December 1920), pp. 207-18.

Lpez-Alonso, Moramay. "Growth with inequality: Living standards in Mexico, 1850-1950," journal of Latin American Studies Vol. 39 (Cambridge University Press: United Kingdom, 2007), pp. 81-101. The author used data on the height of Federal and militia recruits and on pas port applications. Height is a proxy for living standards and showed no benefit to laboring classes, but imprisonments among elites. The data also showed benefits to the working class with the welfare programs of the PRI during the Cárdenas administration.

Navigate the HBC Mexican pages
[Mexican choirs] [Mexican Scouts] [Mexican school uniforms] [Mexican communions]

Created: 9:09 AM 1/24/2016
Spell chcked: 5:03 PM 12/26/2024
Last updated: 8:50 PM 12/26/2024