It is only a few short years since the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies of the ACLS/SSRC undertook a project to promote and to facilitate work in economic history. It is even more recently that there was established a Center for Labor History Studies in the Mexican Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social. While not directly attributable to those developments, it is encouraging to begin to have solid monographic studies in Mexican labor history such as Rodney Anderson’s book about Mexican industrial workers during the years 1906-1911.
Against a background of the history of labor organization and industrial conflict from the mid-nineteenth century and of an analysis of the economic progress of the Porfiriato and its cost, Professor Anderson examines working conditions, the responses of significant groups of industrial workers, governmental policy, and public understanding and reaction. In 1906, “the year of the strikes,” the dam broke, and the flood of labor troubles reached its crest with the Puebla textile strike toward the end of the year, and with the so-called “huelga” of Río Blanco early in the following January.
More than a third of this fine study is devoted to the situation of Mexican society in the aftermath of Río Blanco, the Mexican industrial workers’ role in the revival of political activity in 1909-1910, and the place of the Mexican workers in the Madero rebellion of 1910. Through it all, Dr. Anderson exhibits exemplary caution in view of the limitations of his material and concern for what people believed was happening as well as for what actually transpired.
A reviewer might argue that the author’s annual figures for “braceros” (60-100,000) in the early years of the century are exaggerated even if illegals are included, and that in discussing nineteenth-century liberalism identification should have been made of the mestizo professional middle class. However, these are relatively minor matters in the perspective of the overall excellence of the volume and the importance of the author’s contribution to our understanding of the circumstances and importance of industrial workers in the final years of the rule of Porfirio Díaz. This reviewer feels that the author has made significant contributions in his efforts to define the relationship of the Mexican Liberal Party (PLM) and the workers, in his analysis of what motivated the latter, and in his conclusion regarding the contribution of the workers to the defeat of the aging dictator.
Professor Anderson, differing with James Cockcroft and others, believes that the relationship between the workers and the PLM was far less direct than has been assumed. While admittedly the evidence is not conclusive, the author is persuasive as he argues that the Cananea strike was “spontaneous and not a conspiracy of the PLM to begin a revolution against the regime” (p. 116); that, contrary to Cockcroft’s exaggerated claims, few workers answered the PLM’s call to revolution in 1908 although aware of the movement’s pro-labor attitude; and that the evidence does not support the contention that the PLM instigated and was the main political force behind the Río Blanco strike. Professor Anderson concludes that the evidence that the strike was politically motivated is neither substantial nor conclusive.
The government did view with alarm the possibility of disgruntled workers joining hands with the PLM in an effort to overthrow the regime. The PLM did have sympathizers among the workers, but not as many as feared. The industrial workers did not take up arms in the second abortive revolt of the PLM in 1908, and by 1910 the workers, by and large, were maderistas. Rejecting the thesis that it was the precursory PLM which brought the workers into the struggle not only against Díaz but against the capitalist system, Professor Anderson concludes that the PLM was a marginal factor for the workers most of whom were not ideologically radical at this time.
In addition to the customary grievances and reaction to a worsening of conditions, strikingly noteworthy is Dr. Anderson’s stress on the workers’ concern for their place in society, for the lack of dignity and respect in their situation. Rather than a radical reorganization of society, most of the industrial workers sought a dignified, respected role within the new industrial national society. They sought justice and respect as workers and respect as citizens. Since many of the offending supervisors and owners were foreign, labor’s problems took on a nationalist coloration and labor’s struggles became symbols of Mexican concern and reaction to foreign penetration and domination.
Labor sought its justice through organization, strikes, governmental policy, political activity and, finally, through support of armed rebellion. Social justice and nationalism became inextricably tied together, and many came to view the labor problem within a nationalist context. Consequently, the author can conclude that “when the regime of Porfirio Díaz fell in May 1911, its defeat was due in an important way to the Mexican workers” (p. 328).
