This paper hasn't been completely formatted into HTML yet. When I transfered it from my word processor, none of the footnote numbering came through.
Dave Cartwright
December 8,1997
Mexico has two long anarchist, communal traditions. Like so many things in Mexico, this fact derives from the combination of the European and indigenous American traditions. The European tradition is that of Bakhunin, Kropotkin, Proudon, and of the French Revolution. The indigenous tradition is that of the peasant communities which worked their farmland in common to meet the needs of the entire community. One of the main concerns of the Mexican Revolution was land reform. The indigenous tradition is the view that all people share in the sun, the wind, and the rain and so should also share in the land. The Agrarianists, in many ways, were the natural allies of the anarchists. One of the primary concerns of the Agrarianists was the return of communal lands that had been stolen by the large haciendas. The anarchists of the Partido Liberal Mexicano (PLM) wished to end all large landholding and, eventually, all private property stating that "The Mexican Liberal Party believes that the so-called right of individual property is an iniquitous right, because it subjects the greater number of human beings to toil and suffering for the satisfaction and ease of a small number of capitalists". This ultimate goal may have been too radical for many or most Agrarianists, but the appeal to communal land ownership or ownership of small plots by those who work the land certainly would have been similar to the goals of the Agrarianists. As such this is a philosophical area that had the potential for broad appeal to both the native peasant and worker class and to those with a Eurocentric education within the middle and upper classes. This tradition is just as well expressed by the slogan "liberte, egalite, fraternite", as it is in "tierra y libertad".
This paper will include a variety of source types. It will include books, articles, and other secondary material. It will include the writings of different anarchists, both in Spanish and as translated into English. It will examine the role of the anarchists and particularly the ruling Junta of the PLM in the Mexican revolution. It will seek to clarify the extent to which the Magonistas lived up to their creed, their competence as leaders, and their importance in the overall series of events in and around the Mexican Revolution. Questions and Methodology
While "official" anarchist organizations were of limited utility in Mexico (and this has generally been the case with anarchist institutions regardless of geographic location or culture), many people believe that the influence of anarchist ideas was quite important. Any analysis of anarchism that follows only the activities and influence of "official" organizations is inherently flawed. This flaw is still a common one among much of the available literature in spite of the trend toward "everyday" and social history in recent decades. On the other hand, it can be difficult to demonstrate in a definitive manner whether or not a particular person or group was influenced by the ideas of others. The best way to demonstrate this is by providing examples wherein persons not officially affiliated with an anarchist group use their slogans or close paraphrases thereof.
With its mistrust of hierarchical authority structures and focus on the autonomy of the individual, anarchism is destined to exist as many small, fractious organizations or often simply as individual anarchists trying to live by their ideals and spread those same ideals to others. As such, it is far more important to look at the actions of leftist and revolutionary organizations in order to determine if those actions are anarchist, if their documents contain anarchist ideas or debates, and to see if their membership was comprised of known or self-described anarchists. In Tierra y Libertad, Ricardo Flores Magon advised that anarchists should join any and all revolutionary groups, especially if their actions were anarchist regardless of what they called themselves or the content of their literature. His strategy was to bore from within. It was more important to him to spread anarchist ideas than to spread the name "anarchism".
If one proceeds from this view of the anarchist movement, it becomes easier to trace its prominence through various times and places within early 20th century Mexico. It is with this viewpoint in mind, that I will attempt to trace the anarchist strain of leftist thought within several organizations in a period roughly consisting of the years 1900-1930 with a special focus on the period from 1910-1920. This will include references to various national labor organizations as well individual unions and various locals within the unions. It will include peasant groups, the leaders of various regional uprisings, the Partido Comunisto Mexicano (PCM) and other parties. While attempting to cover the whole subject as well as possible, this paper is limited by several factors: time, availability of materials, and length. The paper will take a particular focus on Ricardo Flores Magon and the Partido Liberal Mexicano (PLM). While there is a certain sparsity to the available works on the general anarchist strain of thought, there has been a recent amount of scholarship and interest in Flores Magon. It is not the intent of this paper to be a biographical work on one particular individual. However, Flores Magon is the most well known proponent of anarchism in Mexico during the time period in question and probably the most influential and well known Mexican anarchist ever. As such, in various forms, he will be the central focus of the paper. We will focus on his writings and his work through the PLM. Flores Magon worked as a propagandist, an organizer, a politician, and a revolutionary. He was extremely eloquent and a very forceful personality. He was a major figure in the Mexican Revolution in spite of the fact that he never set foot in Mexico during the revolution. He managed to lead an influential expatriate organization in spite of the fact that he spent over half of his time in the United States in prison. In many accounts of the Mexican Revolution, little attention is paid to Flores Magon. It would be easy to dismiss him and the PLM as unimportant if one only viewed him as an imprisoned expatriate nominally heading a small, ineffective group. In order to demonstrate the true importance of Flores Magon, the question of ideological influence is vital. That question will be addressed on several fronts. Flores Magon is most famous (or infamous) for his role in the events that Lowell L. Blaisdell calls "The Desert Revolution" which occurred in Baja California in 1911. Coverage of these events are central to an understanding of the role and legacy of Flores Magon's influence in the revolution. It is equally necessary to attempt to examine his role and influence in the Maderista and Zapatista movements within the revolution in Mexico as well as the actions of Mexican groups within the southwestern portion of the United States.
Ideological Tactics
Even though regional studies of
the revolution have gained prominence in recent years, it is
important to remember that this was a truly national revolution,
not a series of local revolts. The various factional leaders knew
or knew of each other and the groups that they led. Madero and
Flores Magon had been in contact at least since 1904 The
ideologies of the various movements changed through time. In
addition to that fact, the PLM was less than forthcoming about
the radical direction into which its ideology was evolving. It
attempted to be all things to all people on the left. In order to
appeal to the reformist left, they continued to espouse
traditional liberal themes. In order to appeal to the American
Federation of Labor and the United States' Socialist Party of
Eugene Debs, they professed mildly socialist views. The PLM
published one manifesto geared to capture and maintain the
support of U.S. organized labor by demonstrating that the
economic aspects of the Mexican Revolution would remove the
temptation for U.S. business to use Mexico as a source of cheap
labor:
"If the economic revolution is crushed, the American
workingmen will suffer the consequences, for an immigration of
Mexican workingmen still greater than the one that has been
taking place during the last ten or fifteen years, will take
place, and the salaries in this country will be lower still...
The wealth of the magnates of American industry will flow into
Mexico, to them, a field for all the adventurers and all the
exploiters; the manufacturers of the United States would be
transplanted to Mexico, that would become an ideal land for
business because of the cheapness of salaries, and the American
workingmen will find their factories and firms in this country
closed down because it will be more profitable to their bosses...
"
It was only amongst themselves and other anarchists that the PLM
openly expressed their anarchist views prior to 1911. Flores
Magon believed that this was the best way to achieve his goals,
noting in a letter to his brother Enrique and Praxedis Guerrero
that "...No liberal party in the world has the
anti-capitalist tendencies of we who are about to begin a
revolution in Mexico and we would not have been able to achieve
this had we merely called ourselves socialists instead of
anarchists. Thus everything is a question of tactics." On
some levels, this is certainly true. Perhaps Magon's weakness was
that he was less skilled as a tactician than he was as a writer
and propagandists. Other anarchist have disagreed with Magon's
view on what the proper tactics for his situation were. . As
Jason Wehling notes in an article on Flores Magon:
The Le Temps Nouveaux, an influential French anarchist journal, in an editorial blamed Ricardo for his failure to openly proclaim his anarchism, arguing that it was a fatal political error. MacLachlan agrees, stating that the "most important mistake remains the PLM's failure to publicly convey its anarchistic program prior to 1911."22 Basically, Ricardo was building the wrong kind of organization with the wrong kind of people for the goals he ultimately fought for. Consequently, the PLM experienced widespread defections from the party in the subsequent years after the 1906 uprising, an increasingly after Madero's triumph over the Porfiriato.
Ultimately, it seems likely that the tactics of the PLM in hiding the radical edge of its ideology was harmful. It was impossible to maintain the appearance of being all things to all leftists. When the PLM spoke out of the radical edge of its mouth, it alienated more moderate leftists. Its attempts to hold moderate leftist support made many anarchists doubtful of the sincerity of the PLM's anarchism. It seems likely that Ricardo Flores Magon's anarchism and that of the PLM did evolve from a more traditional liberalism. The appearance of liberalism was not entirely tactical. There was a vain streak to Flores Magon's personality that prevented him from taking full responsibility for many of the failures of the organization that he led. Late in his life, he blamed Camilo Arriaga (founder of the Porfirian Liberal Movement) for the split between himself and Madero rather than seeing that it was his own politics and tactics that had caused the split.
In the European tradition,
anarchism was an idea that evolved over time beginning with the
enlightenment. It is one idea that through its evolution is
completely, fully European rather than being the product of one
country or small region. Its leading intellectual figures come
from Russia, Great Britain, Germany, and France. Its received its
most devoted popular following in Italy and Catalonia. Anarchism
has gone by and goes by many different names as a general
grouping as well as names for the various subgenres including,
but not limited to anarchism, libertarian communism, libertarian
socialism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and
anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-mutualism and anarcho-individualism.
The differences are usually just minor differences in emphasis,
although given the personality of anarchism and many anarchists
these minor variations often lead to heated sectarian divisions.
There has been one recent evolution of anarchist thought that is,
in most respects, far, far different than the previously
mentioned variations: anarcho-capitalism. While this is not the
place to go into a full analysis of anarcho-capitalism, it is
relevant in that it helps to define anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism
is to traditional laissez-faire liberalism what the libertarian
or anarchist versions of communism and socialism are to the more
mainstream versions of those ideologies. The use of coersion for
the achievement of political goals is anathema to them. The
anarcho-capitalists are missing a recognition of the coercive
nature of property relations that would leave many observers to
see their brand of anarchism as inherently flawed. Nonetheless,
they draw much of their ideology from the classic thinkers of
anarchism. After having given these broad outlines of the
anarchist philosophy, it is important to understand exactly what
Flores Magon meant when he spoke of anarchy and when he
proclaimed himself an anarchist. As a propogandist, his writings
are full of these expositions on anarchy. The best one, however
comes from a letter he wrote to Harry Weinberger from prison in
1921. It is broad in its scope, specific in its goals, and has
the advantage of being part of his personal correspondence rather
than something presented for public consumption:
Now, then, the doctrines I
assert and practice are the anarchist doctrines, and I challenge
all fair-minded men and women the world over to prove to me that
the anarchist doctrines are detrimental to the human race.
Anarchism strives for the establishment of a social order based
on brotherhood and love, as against the actual form of society,
founded on violence, hatred and rivalry of one class against the
other, and of members of one class among themselves. Anarchism
aims at establishing peace forever among all the races of the
earth by the suppression of this fountain of all evils—the
right of private property. If this is not a beautiful ideal, what
is it? No one thinks that the peoples of the civilized world are
living under ideal conditions. Every conscientious person feels
himself shocked at the sight of this continual strife of men
against man, of this unending deceiving of one another. Material
success is the goal that lures men and women the world over, and
to achieve it no vileness is too vile, no baseness is too base,
to deter its worshippers from coveting it. The results of this
universal madness are appalling; virtue is trampled upon by
crime, and artfulness takes the place of honesty. Sincerity is
only a word, or at the most, a mask under which fraud grins.
There is no courage to uphold the convictions. Frankness has
disappeared and deceit forms the slippery plan on which man meets
man in his social and political intercourse. "Everything for
success" is the motto, and the noble face of the earth is
desecrated with the blood of the contending beasts . . . Such are
the conditions under which we civilized men live, conditions
which breed all sorts of moral and material torture, alas! And
all sorts of moral and material degradation. At the correction of
all these unwholesome influences and the anarchist doctrines aim,
and a man who sustains these doctrines of brotherhood and love
can never be called dangerous bv any sensible, decent person."
Of all of the humanistic and
utopian ideologies that have evolved through modern western
thought, anarchism may be the most idealistic. It labors under
the unlikely belief that humanity can live in peace and
cooperation. It seeks to eliminate all forms of hierarchical
authority, domination, and exploitation. Many people either
villified the anarchists as evil people seeking to end
civilization or dismissed them as impractical dreamers. Flores
Magon realized that he was a dreamer, but believed that today's
dreamer may well be tomorrow's hero. He would have agreed that he
was seeking to end civilization- civilization as we know it at
least, to be replaced with something better as men throughout
history have sought to do:
"The dreamer is the designer of tomorrow. Practical men...
can laugh at him; they do not know that he is the true dynamic
force that pushes the world forward. Suppress him, and the world
will deteriorate towards barbarism. Despised, impoverished, he
leads the way... sowing, sowing, sowing, the seeds that will be
harvested, not by him, but by the practical men of tomorrow, who
will at the same time laugh at another indefatigable dreamer busy
seeding, seeding, seeding."
Mexican Anarchism and the PLM
The anarchists of the PLM believed
that any organization which was doing the work of an anarchist
was useful and an ally. This is a stark contrast to the view
usually held by the PCM and many other leftist organizations
which often stress dogma over results. This view that it is
important to take every possible opportunity to undermine the
current system is one of the very few practical strategic
advantages that the anarchists of the PLM had over the Marxists.
Many of the anarchists also believed that given the proper
education, many other revolutionary groups would become
anarchist. Flores Magon and the other members of the PLM Junta
demonstrate this in their writings during the revolutionary
period. In an essay in Tierra y Libertad a member of the PLM
Junta, Antonio de Pio Araujo writes that the people need to make
sure that they are not simply replacing one political master with
another, but that they make a new society for themselves:
" It is now too late for
the government to talk. The time has gone by for it to show
itself interested in the proletariat that, during four centuries
suffered in slavery. Its weak voice is lost in the clamour of the
revolutionary forces, now enured to war, which are moving from
victory to victory, from triumph to triumph, from expropriation
to expropriation, and are now well-nigh surrounding the
Republic's capital, not that they must should, with the
inevitable fall of President Huerta: "The President of the
Republic is dead; long live the President of the Republic!"
but the great cry of proletarian redemption: "The Capitalist
system is dead! We have killed the Republic! Long live the
Commune!"
Flores Magon's slogan of "Tierra y Libertad" which was adopted by the PLM was later adopted by the Zapatista movement as well. In keeping with Flores Magon's view that a revolutionary anarchist should belong to all revolutionary organizations, there was considerable anarchist infiltration of and contacts with the Zapatista movement. This included direct contact with Zapata. The exact nature of the relationship between Zapata and the Zapatistas and the PLM is complex. It is part of a larger set of issues. One also needs to look at the similarities and differences between the ultimate aims of the various groups and the personalities of their leadership. Madero is generally portrayed as a traditional honest, but naieve upper class liberal. He was a far more clever a leader than this view implies. He was extremely adept at maneuvering within his left wing. At various times he and his forces either convinced PLM members to join his army or disarmed the ones that wouldn't. At one point in 1910 while Ricardo Flores Magon was in prison, Madero issued a manifesto wherein he claimed to have joined forces with the PLM and that Ricardo Flores Magon was to be his Vice- President. Flores Magon was furious at this and denounced it, but it took time for the word to get to him in prison and more time for his reply to get out. In the meantime, many of his liberal supporters joined forces with the Maderistas. Ricardo Flores Magon
Before we look at the events in Baja California, northern Mexico and Texas as well as the relationship of the anarchists of the PLM to the agrarianist Zapatistas, we will give a basic presentation of the major events in the life of Ricardo Flores Magon and the PLM. Ricardo Flores Magon's father was a porfirian army officer. At the turn of the century, Ricardo and his two brothers, Jesus and Enrique, attended law school in Mexico City. It was during this time that the first version of Regeneracion was published. It began primarily as a law review. It gradually became more political in its content and eventually became an article of anti-Diaz sentiment openly seeking his removal as President. The Diaz regime sought to silence Regeneracion by imprisoning its editorial staff. After having completed their sentences, theMagon brothers and several other Liberals sought to continue to publish Regeneracion from exile in Texas. As soon as they were able to do so, they began to be harrassed by Diaz's agents. In fear of their lives, the publishers of Regeneracion now constituted as the organizing Junta of the Partido Liberal Mexicano moved to Saint Louis in 1905 where they again began publishing. It is generally estimated that during this time, they had as many as 20,000 subscribers. The Diaz regime managed to obtain the arrest of the Magons in Saint Louis, Mo in October of 1905. They were not able to obtain a bond until January of 1906. Two months later, they decided to jump bond and head for Canada.
There were officially affiliated
Liberal clubs throughout Mexico. One such club was very active in
the unrest at the Cananea mines, often cited as one of the
primary precursors to the revolution. Diaz refused to credit the
events at Cananea as having any political significance.
Officially, they were simply a labor dispute that went out of
control. In actuality, the Diaz regime stepped up its efforts to
capture the Magons and other members of the Liberal Junta. He
sought extradition of the Junta to Mexico and put pressure on the
U.S. Ambassador David Thompson. He supplied copies of
Regeneracion to Thompson who then forwarded them to the State
Department with the following note:
"The copies I have the
honor to transmit were sent to me by President Diaz himself after
various talks with him in which he expressed the wish that our
Government could through some process end the possibility of the
publishers of this paper continuing their evil work. He has told
me the publishers of the paper are anarchistic in all that they
advocate and on his expressed sentiment, I venture to suggest
that if these men could be dealt with as such men should be, the
President would feel a deep gratitude."
From here, the fortunes of the Flores Magons and the PLM began to decline although their influence did not wane. They chose September of 1906 as the beginning of the revolution. Nothing went well. The only revolutionary activity of any kind was in the border regions between the U.S. and Mexico. The PLM had been thoroughly infiltrated. Most of the planned actions of the PLM were stopped before they could be started. Many leaders were arrested. The Junta decided to try again in early 1907. Not satisfied with this, the PLM leader in Veracruz, Hilario C. Salas headed a revolt with about 1000 troops. Many of Salas's men were Indians seeking to restore communal lands stolen by the hacendados. It was easily put down by the Diaz regime when no other groups joined in the revolutionary activity. The Magons were again arrested, this time in California in 1907. Ricardo was to remain in either State or Federal custody until August 3, 1910, the eve of the revolution. During his internment, Ricardo was defended by two very able and prominent socialist attorneys. This managed to bring them much favorable attention in left wing circles in the U.S.
The PLM Insurrection in Baja California
Flores Magon is, perhaps, most famous for his role in the previously mentioned events which occurred in Baja California in 1911. If one were to look at the records and writings of the PLM during this period, it might seem as if this were the high water mark for not only the Mexican anarchists, but for all 20th century anarchists with the possible exception of Cataluna during the Spanish Civil War. The PLM's army controlled extensive parts of Baja California including Tijuana. According to the anarchists, this was to be the base area for a libertarian movement that would sweep Mexico and eventually the world. In reality, it seems as if the PLM never really had more than nominal control of this area. Their army was poorly equipped in spite of the fact that the PLM was taking in more money during this time period than at any other during its existence. It was difficult to smuggle supplies across the border, but it appears as if the Junta in San Diego did not try. Further, they could have sent money to their army rather easily. They did not do this either. They provided very little guidance as to what course of action the army should take.
It is during this time period that the weakness of the PLM and especially Ricardo Flores Magon is highlighted. It seems as if the PLM leadership did not know how to become real leaders, even in the very relaxed sense of the word that one might expect from anarchists, rather than propogandists. Command of the field army changed several times. One important factor in this was the anarchist principle that the troops should elect their leaders. The Junta instructed their various commanders to live off of the expropriated wealth of the territory. The PLM tried to entice anarchist settlers by offering them free land. They held fundraisers with "celebrity anarchists" such as novelist Jack London and Emma Goldman. It is Ricardo's actions during this time period that make it plausible to discard him as an unimportant figure. The revolution was underway. The PLM had an army in the field that controlled a fair amount of territory. Ricardo was out of jail and freely able to travel. Did Flores Magon take this golden opportunity to lead his organization in the armed revolution that he had been advocating for several years? No. He remained in California where he was able to enjoy his status as a political celebrity and where he was almost certain to land back in a U.S. jail for his role in the uprising. Ultimately, Ricardo Flores Magon chose jail in the United States over leading his movement in Mexico.
The army that fought under the aegis of the PLM consisted of as many or more foreigners (particularly North Americans) as Mexicans. These foreigners were generally of dubious character. The only ones which one might serious consider as revolutionaries were the members of the anarchist union the International Workers of the World (IWW). Many of these were often no more than common criminals. The large number of foreigners complicated propaganda matters greatly. The people of San Diego were able to walk, ride, or drive into Baja California to view the anarchist army as if it were just another tourist attraction. There was a lack of military discipline and revolutionary seriousness prevalent in the area. Mexicans and some North Americans feared that this was actually a plot by either the U.S. government or certain wealthy North American land owners in Baja California to gain this territory for the U.S. Many who held this view believed that Flores Magon was simply a dupe while others accused him of being an active participant and a traitor to Mexico. Others who might or might not have believed this, but appeared to be interested in self-promotion used Baja California to suggest that they were behind a filibustering expedition. In spite of the fact that the PLM may have had the most serious ideological urgency behind their movement of any group, their most successful venture in the revolution appeared, at times, almost as if it were some sort of circus side show. The end of the PLM's anarchistic experiment in Baja California was as inauspicious as its general existence had been. When Madero came to power he set about on the fairly natural goal of re-unifying the nation. In spite of the split between Madero and the PLM, Madero offered Flores Magon a deal that would have given him a larger share of the power than his military exploits would have warranted. Further, he sent Ricardo and Enrique's older brother Jesus and their old friend Juan Sarabia to negotiate with him. Ricardo was not interested in anything less than the continuation of a social revolution. He angrily rejected any deals. The next day, June 14, 1911, U.S. authorities entered the offices of Regeneracion and arrested Enrique and Ricardo. Madero then sent Federal troops into Baja California. By June 22, the PLM's forces had been routed Internationalism and the Plan of San Diego
The exact role of anarchism and its influences on the international aspects of the Mexican Revolution is as large and confusing an issue as the Mexican revolution itself. The political role of ethnic nationalities is an issue that popular opinion would deem to be moot in this country. People in the United States generally think of this as a European problem. Historically, we look at regions such as Transylvania, Silesia, or the Balkans as areas where nation states have irredentist claims and the desire to unify all of their people under one state. U.S. misperceptions about the cultural uniformity of Latin America probably make this a question that many in this country had never even thought of for the rest of Latin America. It is important to note that the Mexican Revolution was an international event that encompassed Mexican expatriate communities in the United States, ethnically Mexican communities in the United States and anglo interests in the southwestern region that was formerly Mexican soil. It is equally important to note the extent to which this fact effected U.S.-Mexican relations and the extent to which those relations were shaped by other geopolitical concerns.
One example that demonstrates both
the international character of the events in this time period and
the influence of anarchism and the PLM is a revolt centered
around the Plan of San Diego, Texas. After the U.S.- Mexican War,
the southern and southeastern portion of Texas had forged a shaky
social order on the basis of intermarriage between Anglos and
Mexicans. At the turn of the century, new technologies changed
the landscape and social order in south Texas. The railroad and
irrigation powered by the steam engine pump suddenly made south
Texas viable as an agricultural export area. Anglos began to
flood the area. They did not intermarry or even socialize with
the ethnically Mexican population. The level of racial
discrimination increased. Mexicans whose families had lived in
the area for generations were subject to the same humiliations
and indecency that the African- and Asian- Americans in the area
suffered at the hands of Anglos. James Sandos notes at length the
extent to which the PLM's ideas had infilitrated this area. He
shows that several prominent citizens and ranch owners subscribed
to Regeneracion and that they read it to their employees and
families and publicly discussed the ideas that it contained. In
this environment, however, the ideas of anarchism also took on a
racial and Mexican nationalist attitude. In 1914 in south Texas
there was a widely distributed handbill which called on Mexicans
to rise up and make Texas an independent republic which would
then be readmitted into Mexico once a stable, constitutional
government had taken power. The revolts that did occur in south
Texas were taken up under the auspices of the Plan of San Diego.
It called for Mexicans, Blacks, Native Americans, and Asians rise
up against the whites in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado,
and California. All adult Anglo males were to be killed.
Eventually, the blacks were to be given additional territory to
be taken from the United States for their own republic The
government of this area was to be organized locally along
anarchist lines. According to the Plan, the uprising was to begin
on February 20, 1915. Segments of the Mexican population
rebelled, attacking Anglo owned ranches and businesses. The
response of the Texas authorities, primarily the Rangers, turned
this conflict into a legitimate race war. The Rangers and other
Anglos in the area began to treat all Mexicans as outlaws and
revolutionaries regardless of their socioeconomic status or
actual opinions on the uprising:
"In supporting traditional Ranger behavior, the Laredo Times editorialized, ‘The recent happenings in the Brownsville country indicates that there is a surplus population down there that needs eliminating.' In this atmosphere valled residents coined a new verb--'rangered'-- to describe summary treatment by any law enforcement official"
The rebellion carried on for a year and due to the circumstances of the times saw some very unusual analyses by those involved as well as some very unusual alliances. The Constitutionalist forces in Mexico often provided troops and firepower for raids conducted by the adherents of the Plan of San Diego. Under normal circumstances, these ideologically opposed groups would not normally have been allies. During this same time period, however, Carranza had enlisted the aid of the anarcho-syndicalists of the Casa del Obrera Mundial. It is unclear whether the actions of the Constitutionalist commanders in northern Mexico in concert with the Adherents of the Plan of San Diego had been approved through Carranza. It may just have been that having been informed that the "anarchists" were now their allies, the local commanders took that to mean the anarchists in Texas as well. After the initial year long uprising was quelled, there was much speculation as to whether or not it would flare up again. Department of Justice agents in the area came to the conclusion that there would be further uprisings funded by the German and Austrian consuls in Monterrey There is no direct evidence that either the German or Austrian government was behind the Plan of San Diego. It seems to have arisen from local conditions with its primary external influence behind the PLM and Regeneracion. There does seem to be some connection between the Mexicans and Germans, even if it was nothing more than a recognition that both were enemies of the Yankees. There were many accounts of the lives of the victims of raids having been spared because they claimed to be Germans. Zapata and the PLM
The one area of concern previously mentioned that we have not covered in depth yet is the relationship between Flores Magon and the PlM and Zapata and the Zapatista agrarianists. The Zapatistas had many common goals with the most radical elements of the Mexican Revolution as embodied in the PLM. On the other hand communal values of the Zapatistas were rooted in Catholic traditions. They were devoutly religious and were reminiscent of the millenarians. Religion was anathema to the anarchists. The church was simply another institution designed to oppress the people in their view. To the devoutly catholic Agrarianists, they godless anarchists may have seemed evil. There were many contacts between the PLM and the Zapatistas however. Late in the revolution, a few of Zapatas close advisors were former Liberals that were still on good terms with Flores Magon, a rare position for any former Liberal to be in. Zapata maintained a subscription to Regeneracion and borrowed ideas and slogans from it quite often. One of the most brilliant writers and military organizers that the PLM ever had, Praxedis Guerrero was very influential on Zapata. Guerrero wrote a series of columns whose name most accurately translates to "tracers" for Regeneracion. These articles were sharp, inciteful, and often laced with stinging sarcasm. They are, perhaps, the only writings in Regeneracion whose rhetorical quality is equal to that of Ricardo Flores Magon's writings. One of Guerrero's sayings is so closely associated with Zapata that it is often mistakenly attributed to him. It is the slogan "better to die on your feet than live on your knees" After Madero defeated the PLM's army in Baja California, the PLM looked to Zapata as the only real hope for agrarian reform and sympathy toward anarcho-syndicalism. Zapata's name wasn't thrown about as another potential tyrant as were the names Villa, Obregon, Carranza, and Madero. The PLM seemed to recognize Zapata as being a man of the people. In this respect, Zapata was what Flores Magon may have wished to have been. It seems likely that Flores Magon and the PLM realized this and admired and respected Zapata for it. Depending on how one defines anarchism, Zapata may or may not have been an anarchist. He doesn't appear to have thought of himself as one, but many other anarchists did and do: "Emiliano Zapata...saw the indian way of life threatened...from the growing capitalisation of Mexico. At first he listened to Madero...[but}remained unconvinced. In the cities there was a small but effective, anarchist movement. It was this idea of anarchism that enthralled Zapata and his people..."
Conclusions
Anarchism in the Mexican revolution cannot be isolated as one small specific phenomenon or group. It cannot be ignored as an unimportant part of the revolution. The efforts of the anarchists cannot be written off as the self indulgent rantings of a few middle class intellectuals. The anarchists may not have succeeded in gaining a mass following, but their work was important. The PLM's 1906 Manifesto became a basis for the post revolutionary constitution: "The document's influence went well beyond merely the urban laboring classes of Mexico. Of the 52 individual proposals contained in the PLM platform of 1906, 23 were eventually adopted in the Constitution of 1917, while 26 were adopted in a more mild form, not going as far as the original PLM platform -- while only three were entirely neglected." Whatever their flaws and failures may have been, it is clear that their influence and, therefore, their success was great.
Bibliography
Albro, Ward S. 1992. Always a Rebel:Ricardo Flores Magon and the
Revolution. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press.
Avrich, Paul. 1988. Anarchist Portraits. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Blaisdell, Lowell L. 1962. The Desert Revolution: Baja
California, 1911. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Carr, Barry. 1980. "Recent Regional Studies of the Mexican
Revolution" Latin American Research Review: Volume 15,
Number One.
Flores Magon, Ricardo. 1977. Tierra y Libertad: Land &
Liberty, Anarchist Influences in the Mexican Revolution. Orkney,
U.K.: Cienfuegos Press, Ltd.
Hart, John M. 1978. Anarchism & The Mexican Working Class,
1860-1931. Austin: The University of Texas Press.
Hodges, Donald C.1995. Mexican Anarchism After the Revolution.
Austin: The University of Texas Press.
Langham, Thomas C. 1981. Border Trials: Ricardo Flores Magon and
the Mexican Liberals. El Paso: Texas Western Press.
Sandos, James A. 1992. Rebellion in the Borderlands: Anarchism
and the Plan of San Diego, 1904-1923. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Turner, Ethel Duffy. 1960. Ricardo Flores Magon y el Partido
Liberal Mexicano. Morella: Editorial "Erandi" del
Gobierno del Estado Morella.
Newman, Stephen L. Liberalism at Wits' End. Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press, 1984.
Wehling, Jason. Anarchist Influences on the Mexican Revolution as
published at the following web address:
http://www.teleport.com/~jwehling/Anarchy.Mex.Rev.html
notes
1. Translated from the Manifesto of September 23, 1911 as it
appears in Regeneracion
2.http://www.teleport.com/~jwehling/Anarchy.Mex.Rev.html as
quoted from "To the workers of the United States"
3. Land and Liberty, pages 16 & 17
4.http://www.teleport.com/~jwehling/Anarchy.Mex.Rev.html
5.Sembradores, page 6
6.liberalism at wits' end
7.http://www.pitzer.edu/~dward/Anarchist_Archives/bright/magon/works/harry.html
8.http://www.teleport.com/~jwehling/Anarchy.Mex.Rev.html
9.Flores Magon, Ricardo, p.55 of Tierra Y Libertad
10.Tierra Y Libertad. Page 18.
11.Albro, page 35
12.Albro, pages 42-43
13.Albro, page 64
14.Blaisdell, page 130
15.Blaisell, page 136
16.Sandos, page 32
17.Sandos, Chapter 4
18.Sandos, page 80
19.Sandos, page 81
20.Sandos, page 92
21.Sandos, page 142
22.Sandos, page 13
23. Albert Metzer, page 2 of Tierra Y Libertad
24. http://www.teleport.com/~jwehling/Anarchy.Mex.Rev.html